At
the 13:30 ff. mark of the NCE-E1 video linked to in my previous thread, James
White said:
And
it would be very easy—would have been absolutely simplistic—to, to press T. D.
Jakes to come up with a meaningful response to one simple question—which I
would think would be just obvious to a church leader at least—uhh, and that is
this: Did the Son as a divine person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem? Not as
an ideal idea; not as, as concept in the mid of the Father; but, did the Son as a
divine person exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem? Did he have interaction
with the Father...
And
a bit later at 15:00 ff.:
All
you have to do to recognize modalism, and to, and to unmask modalism, is to, is
to say: Do you believe that the Son as a divine person pre-existed his birth in
Bethlehem? Was in relationship with the Father; there was communion and love
between the Son and the Father before the incarnation. That question was not
asked.
I
discern two significant problems with the above comments by James: first,
modalists believe "the one Being that is God" (I am using James' own
phrase, from his book The Forgotten Trinity, here) pre-existed His
incarnation, "as Father, Word, and Spirit." James' "absolutely
simplistic" question is easily side-stepped by historic/traditional
modalists. Second, a number of Evangelical theologians (including Reformed
folk) deny that the second person of the Trinity existed as the Son
prior to the incarnation !!! (See THIS
THREAD for documentation.)
Maybe
it was just on 'off-day' for James (I sincerely hope that in his debates with
modalists his arguments were substantially more accurate and solid); but with
that said, I shall end this post by recommending that a good portion of his
presentation in the NCE-E1 video should be Forgotten as soon as
possible...
Grace
and peace,
2 comments:
You actually quote Dr. White saying "Did the Son as a divine person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem?" but then seem to ignore this fact when you take from The Forgotten Trinity an unrelated quote.
You then note that some "Evangelical theologians" (ignoring the historical context of the term Evangelical), deny the second person of the Trinity existed as a person prior to the incarnation. Not sure what that has to do with anything Dr. White said. You seem to only be stretching for a reason to disprove.
Hello Lockheed,
Thanks for taking the time to respond; you posted:
==You actually quote Dr. White saying "Did the Son as a divine person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem?" but then seem to ignore this fact when you take from The Forgotten Trinity an unrelated quote.==
Me: I must disagree; modalists maintain that the divine person, incarnate in the Son (i.e. Jesus Christ) pre-existed, and was "the one Being that is God". For example, David Bernard wrote:
"We can resolve most questions about the Godhead if we properly understand the dual nature of Jesus. When we read a statement about Jesus we must determine if it describes Jesus as a man or as God. Moreover, whenever Jesus speaks in Scripture we must determine whether He is speaking as man or as God. Whenever we see a description of two natures with respect to Jesus, we should not think of two persons in the Godhead or of two Gods, but we should think of Spirit and flesh...we must always remember that is fully God and not merely an anointed man." (The Oneness of God, pp. 87, 88.)
For Bernard, and other modalists, it was "the one Being that is God" that became incarnate; as such, my statement is definitely related.
==You then note that some "Evangelical theologians" (ignoring the historical context of the term Evangelical), deny the second person of the Trinity existed as a person prior to the incarnation. Not sure what that has to do with anything Dr. White said. You seem to only be stretching for a reason to disprove.==
Me: Once again, I must disagree. If one presses a modalist on the issue of whether or not the Son was pre-existent, all he needs to do is bring up the fact that number of respected Evangelical theologians deny the eternal Sonship of the Logos, maintaining that there was no "Son of God" prior to the incarnation.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment