Discussion between eques and Lee Woofenden

9:00 PM

And even on casual statements of things that we know are not exactly true, but that are an easy shorthand for common speech.

@eques The third choice is new revelation that returns us to the earlier lost/abandoned truth.

eques

@LeeWoofenden I did say combination

Lee Woofenden

@eques Which brings us full circle back to the original argument. I believe that the "persons" of God originally was essentially modalist, and that the Trinity of Persons still is an essentially modalist doctrine. And that is actually an improvement over a strict belief in a trinity of Persons, since modalist doctrine, although false, at least is closer to believing in one God than is trinitarian doctrine.

I believe that the rejection of the Trinity of Person will have to happen by stages. And recognizing the essential unity is a step in the direction of rejecting the tri-theism inherent in thinking of them as "Persons."

eques

@LeeWoofenden what do you mean modalist?

Lee Woofenden

Beyond that, I think the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons is simply false and incorrect because it is a fleshly interpretation of spiritual teachings. It makes the error of thinking in human terms (distinct fathers, sons, and breaths) about things that are actually divine.

@eques The idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different "modes," or ways of appearing, of one God. And though trinitarians doctrinally reject modalism, I believe that their own doctrine is essentially modalist. It says that the one essential being of God manifests itself in three different Persons, each of which is an expression of that same essential substance.

eques

@LeeWoofenden so then what do you belief the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are? Do you reject the divinity of Christ?

Lee Woofenden

9:05 PM

@eques No. We fully accept the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But instead of thinking of them as "Persons" of God, we think of them as essential components (Latin: essentialia) of God.

eques

@LeeWoofenden but that's not modal?

Lee Woofenden

@eques No. See:

6

Q: What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist" in contrast with "trinitarian." Obviously there are plenty of general differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that'...

The question is badly worded, but my answer is, I think, clear enough.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden Just interesting to note that you (Swedenborgians) do accept some "sound doctrines that are not in Scripture," but choose not to accept the Trinity which is itself deduced from scripture. Returning to lurk but must add the following

Lee Woofenden

@KorvinStarmast I don't insist that everyone believe exactly what we do on all subjects. But living by the essentials is key.

@KorvinStarmast And though the trinity may be "deduced" from Scripture, it is not actually stated in Scripture.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden You won't find disagreement to the living of the essentials.

Lee Woofenden

9:09 PM

@KorvinStarmast We believe that people of all religions, even including Christian religions deeply mired in falsity, are saved if they live according to the essentials.

So although I may sharply differ with you on doctrine, I would never say to you, as Protestants have many times said to me, that you are going to hell because you believe the wrong thing.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden Nor does it have to be, but aren't going to convince each other today. My whole point in arriving at this chat room was to echo the objection to incorrectly citing the beliefs of a different group. It may have been unintentional, but it's a form of well poisoning and not your usual style.

@LeeWoofenden I would never say to you, as Protestants have many times said to me, that you are going to hell because you believe the wrong thing. I am of the same mind.

@LeeWoofenden I felt that eques raised a reasonable objection to the mischaracterization. As you are not a fan of denomination wars (neither am I) I found your response puzzling.

Lee Woofenden

@KorvinStarmast The whole answer is introduced as the Swedenborgian view of the subject. I suppose I could attempt to state that in an even more crystal clear fashion. But I don't see Catholic and Protestant answer insisting that this is the Catholic/Protestant view in all of their answers. It is simply assumed that this is the Catholic/Protestant view.

I think the objections are really because Swedenborgians believe something that is highly objectionable to trinitarians, so they want the answer to say, "Hey, yeah, this isn't orthodox Christian belief; it's just what us Swedenborgian crazies think!" But I don't think we should have to do that any more than Catholics, Protestants, or Eastern Christians should have to do it.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden I am not complaining about your presenting the S.B. view, I find it of interest. I was more concerned with your response to the way the objection was raised. I tried to answer a reformed question and at the end offered an apology for any error. Got a few up votes, but I must not have gotten it very right.

Lee Woofenden

@KorvinStarmast What specific response are you talking about?

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden The comment stream that led to this chat room discussion with eques. I see that you have made peace. As to "Hey, yeah, this isn't orthodox Christian belief; it's just what us Swedenborgian crazies think!" That's not where I come from. Part of that is thanks to interactions with you, and partly due to the varied Christian influences over my whole life.

Lee Woofenden

9:21 PM

@KorvinStarmast Mainly, I was trying to get him not to engage in doctrinal debates in the comments section. And I do get weary of having to constantly deal with people saying "you're wrong" in response to my answers. No, I'm not "wrong." I'm presenting the Swedenborgian view on this subject, which is exactly what I'm supposed to be doing here.

eques

@KorvinStarmast Yes, that exactly was my point. He is free to explain Swedenborgianism endlessly including its perceptions of Trinitarian ideas, but it's not okay to mischaracterize the actual Trinitarian views. He may not have meant it, but contextually it wasn't apparent what was SB view of Trinitarianism versus what he though Trinitarians actually believed

Lee Woofenden

Whether I'm wrong in an absolute sense is irrelevant to the Q&A section of this website.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden When presenting that view, if that includes an incorrect characterization of a differing view or one that is being used as a comparison, then it gets into well poisoning.

Lee Woofenden

@eques No. The Swedenborgian view is that what trinitarians believe about the Trinity is inherently polytheistic. That's not "wrong" for the purposes of the main Q&A segment of this site. It is simply a factual description of what Swedenborgians believe.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden OK, Lee, with those points in mind, I'll go back and read that answer again and see if I have any suggestions to offer.

Lee Woofenden

9:24 PM

Once again, I'd love to argue with hundreds of answers on this site, which I think are totally wrong doctrinally. But as long as they accurately represent what particular groups of Christians believe, I must refrain, because they are doing what this site is meant to do.

KorvinStarmast

@LeeWoofenden Amen to that.

eques

@LeeWoofenden Yes, when I read it it wasn't really clear which parts were actually what SB views about Trinitarianism and which parts were just statements about Trinitarianism. I.e. there's a difference between saying "SB views Trinity as tri-theism" and "Trinitarians think 3 when the say one" The former is valid, the latter is a presumption on another's belief

Lee Woofenden

@KorvinStarmast Unfortunately, Swedenborgians believe that the well is poisoned. For us to try to pretend that we don't think it's a poisonous doctrine would be unfaithful to our beliefs and our faith.

eques

and furthermore adds nothing to your arugment

Lee Woofenden

You may think we're absolutely wrong. But that is how we view the doctrine of the Trinity as believed in by mainstream Christians.

I could actually have been much stronger in my wording. In fact, we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons led to the utter destruction of Christianity.

eques

9:26 PM

@LeeWoofenden There's a difference between saying "this doctrine is wrong and poisonous" and incorrectly describing what the doctrine is.

Lee Woofenden

We view it as a false foundation of a church that from that time forward was "Christian in name only, and not in reality and essence." (That's a direct quote from Swedenborg.)

@eques The thing is, we think that trinitarians are mistaken in their view of their own doctrine. That is our belief.

And you can call that presumtuous, hubristic, impolite, blasphemous, stupid, or whatever you want. But that is what we believe.

eques

@LeeWoofenden but not in the way you describe and the fact that some or even many have errors in their own personal understanding is not the same thing as the actual idea being wrong.

@LeeWoofenden and we believe that every doctrinal statement from before Nicea until now (which I've read all of them at one point or another) is in harmony and correct development.

Lee Woofenden

@eques We think the actual idea is wrong. And we think that people's personal understanding of it is a direct result of the idea itself being wrong. We think it is impossible to actually think of one God in one's mind's eye when one holds to the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons. We think that everyone who believes in that actually thinks in terms of three gods, even though their lips say "one God."

Doctrine that inevitably leads to faulty thinking is bad doctrine.

eques

@LeeWoofenden does SB understand perfectly internally what God is?

@LeeWoofenden that reeks awfully close to a Gnostic idea given that not everyone is equally gifted in intellect

Lee Woofenden

For example, Protestants greatly protest "antinomianism"--which is people thinking the Law, and how we live, doesn't matter at all--as a wrong interpretation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. And yet, ever since Luther first promulgated it, Protestantism has been dogged by antinomianism. They can protest all they want, "That's not what it means!" But if a doctrine persistently leads people to false ideas, then the doctrine itself is suspect, and probably wrong.

That's how we view the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons.

@eques No one but God has a perfect understanding. But we do believe it is possible to have right and wrong ideas about God at our own level of understanding. We do believe that there is a real distinction between truth and falsity even on the human level of understanding, regardless of the reality that none of us has a perfect understanding.

eques

9:33 PM

@LeeWoofenden yes, no argument here.

Lee Woofenden

@eques A false doctrine such as "we are justified by faith alone" naturally leads people to think that all that really matters is what they believe. A true doctrine such as "we are justified by our works, and not by faith alone" naturally leads people to live good lives because it is necessary to our salvation.

Doctrine is meant to be a guide to life. But if it regularly and almost inevitably leads us to faulty beliefs and practices, then that doctrine is not doing its job, and is also most likely wrong. "By your fruits you will know them" applies to doctrines as well as to human beings.

eques

A statement is true or false irrespective of whether someone can easily understand it

Lee Woofenden

@eques I'm not talking about "easily understanding it." I'm talking about what effects it has on us, and most importantly, on our lives.

eques

@LeeWoofenden Interesting point, but it's also nothing new. Some of the earlier Christological issues resulted in people rejecting opposite parties based on what they thought they believed rather than what they actually believed

Lee Woofenden

Having said that, one of the problems with the Trinity of Persons is that it is, in fact, impossible to understand, as even its own most ardent supporters admit when, in the end, they say that it is a "mystery" that we must believe.

It's not a "mystery." It's a falsity.

eques

9:38 PM

@LeeWoofenden and what effect does it have on a person to believe in the Trinity or not?

@LeeWoofenden We understand that some things are beyond our comprehension. The doctrine of the Trinity is what the Church discerned to explain the various beliefs of God, Christ, Holy Spirit, etc in the Early Church

Lee Woofenden

@eques But the more fundamental issue was people rejecting other people based purely on differing beliefs. Once the church started down that path, its destruction was certain. And the council from which the Nicene Creed came was called in large part to suppress the beliefs of Arius. So the church had already departed from charity, and was engaged in internecine battles about intellectual matters.

@eques It divides the One God into three in their minds, which confuses people's belief about God, and makes it difficult for them to approach the One God with a clear mind. It also leads to many doctrinal errors based on dividing God into three instead of fully accepting God as one.

@eques There is more on this in the relevant section of my article, "Does Doctrine Matter? Why is it Important to Believe the Right Thing?"

@eques I realize that. I simply think it was mistaken in its view, because it was thinking to materialistically about spiritual and divine things.

@eques Our view is that the Trinity of Persons was one of hundreds of heresies that infected the church once it departed from charity and began fighting about faith. It just happens to have been the heresy that one. And even that was providential, since the other heresies about the nature of God were even worse. But the church, in its vitiated state, could neither see nor adopt the actual, spiritual and divine truth about the trinity in God.

eques

@LeeWoofenden Truth is one; thus we reject false ideas about God, his Church and his Truth. That's what kept us going. If you allow everything without restraint, how does one know what is true?

Lee Woofenden

The doctrine of the Trinity of Persons was a falsity, but at least it accepted the full divinity of Jesus Christ--which most of the competing heresies did not. And if the divinity of Jesus Christ had been rejected, the Christian Church would not only have fallen into error, but would have ceased to exist altogether, since the divinity of Jesus Christ is the foundation stone of the Christian religion.

eques

@LeeWoofenden how many of those doctrinal errors result from the Trinitarian view itself vs having a misunderstanding of the view? I.E. how many of those ideas follow from Trinitarian views and thus Trinitarians generally accept?

@LeeWoofenden materialistically?

Lee Woofenden

Arius had to be rejected because he rejected the divinity of Christ. Unfortunately, the Christian bishops that Constantine called together were not enlightened human beings. They thought materialistically, and they could come to no other solution to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit problem than to define them as distinct "Persons" as if God existed on the same material level as human beings do.

eques

9:48 PM

@LeeWoofenden so the bishops were right to throw out Arius because of that, but they were presumptuous and wrong to do the same intellectual/spiritual process to describe and discern the Trinity... hmm

Lee Woofenden

@eques We believe that once you separate God into three, false doctrines will inevitably flow from that rejection of the full oneness of God. And in practice, if you remove the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons, all of the doctrines of atonement and salvation of traditional Christianity (which we also believe are false) fall to the ground, because they all depend on the Son being a separate person from the Father, satisfying the Father, and so on.

eques

@LeeWoofenden "Persons" has nothing to do with matter or material level

Lee Woofenden

@eques Yes, materialistically. The Trinity of Persons conceptualizes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as existing in a way similar to human fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the meaning of "spirit").

Jesus himself made heavy use of metaphor and parable in his teaching. And every time people try to take his words literally, as if they weren't metaphors for deeper, spiritual and divine realities, they fall into all sorts of terribly false beliefs and errors.

Similarly, the New Testament uses the human experience of fathers, sons, and breath as metaphors for a deeper divine reality. But the framers of the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons missed the metaphor, and thought materialistically, taking these as three distinct figures, or "Persons" rather than as metaphors for different aspects of the one God.

eques

@LeeWoofenden really? you think the entire idea of Trinity was based on us not seeing that Father Son and Spirit were metaphors?

Lee Woofenden

@eques And yet, "persons" has a meaning in the minds of people that gives them a false picture of what God is actually like.

@eques Yes, I do. I think it was thinking according to the flesh, which kills, rather than according to the spirit, which gives life.

Beyond that, if it were important for us to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "persons" of God, the Bible would have said so. But it doesn't.

I do not think God would have failed so spectacularly in his Word as not to tell us something that was so essential to right belief and life.

eques

9:53 PM

@LeeWoofenden but that's a limited understanding of the development of the Trinity. There are two conflated issues here: the idea of Persons and what those persons are. You do use the labels, Father Son and Spirit, right? And how do you understand those roles/aspects?

Lee Woofenden

The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons is not stated plainly and clearly in the Bible is therefore enough for me to at minimum think it is an unimportant doctrine, and at maximum that it is a false doctrine.

eques

@LeeWoofenden By what authority do you know that it must be in Scripture?

@LeeWoofenden The Word that was made flesh and dwelt among us is not the word written on pages in a book. Not the same thing ontologically

Lee Woofenden

@eques I see the Father as the unknowable core of God, which abstractly is the Divine Love, the Son as the knowable human presence of God, which abstractly is the Divine Truth or Divine Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit as the power of God flowing out into the universe and into human souls.

@eques I understand that. But the words written on the page are a physical expression of the ontological Word that is with God and is God.

eques

@LeeWoofenden my point is the absence of an idea in Scripture isn't a failure of the Word unless you separately presume that the word of Scripture must represent the totality of Christ (which Scripture itself doesn't assert)

Lee Woofenden

@eques For a fuller explanation of the Swedenborgian view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, please see: my article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?"

eques

9:57 PM

@LeeWoofenden Did the Son exist before the Incarnation?

Lee Woofenden

Note that this article is a popular exposition of the doctrine. It is not intended to provide rigorous support from the Scriptures, for that I would recommend the first few chapters of Swedenborg's summa theologica:" *True Christianity.

@eques No.

eques

@LeeWoofenden "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" So this means what then?

Lee Woofenden

@eques Neither did the Holy Spirit. But that does get into some theological and philosophical complexities.

@eques The Divine Love, Wisdom, and Power did exist before the Incarnation. These are the "prototypes," if you will, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But the Son did not exist before the Incarnation because the Wisdom, or *logos" ("Word") had not yet become flesh. "Becoming flesh" means manifesting to human beings in a human presence. That didn't happen until the Incarnation.

There was no "eternal Son." The Son was God himself becoming present with human beings. And that had to happen within the particularities of time and space.

Before the Incarnation, God could not be seen by human eyes. After the Incarnation, God could be seen by human eyes, in the form of the Son, which Swedenborg also calls "the Divine Humanity."

eques

@LeeWoofenden so the Son is only the Son in relation to his Incarnation, and thus the Father is only the Father also due to the Incarnation. But the Son is Divine? so that seems like Patripassionism (by the name -- not necessarily what it concurrently means).

Is Christ True God and True Man?

Lee Woofenden

@eques Yes. But you have to understand that during his lifetime on earth, Jesus had both an infinite divine nature, which was his "soul," and was God the Father, in NT terminology, and a finite human nature derived from his human mother Mary. His infinite divine nature could not suffer, be attacked by the Devil, suffer on the cross, and so on. But his finite human nature could.

During his lifetime on earth, Jesus successively put off all of the finite humanity that he derived from his human mother, and replaced it with a divine humanity that was an expression of his infinite divine being from the Father. By the time of his Resurrection and Ascension, there was nothing from his human mother Mary left. That is why he never recognized her as his mother.

This is explained more fully in my answer to this question:

9

Q: How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?

One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken. Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this ...

jesus nature-of-god trinity swedenborg

During Jesus' lifetime on earth, his conscious awareness alternated between being present primarily in his finite human nature and his infinite divine nature. Not understanding this leads to much false understanding and doctrine about the nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I must take a break to walk the dog. If you wish to continue, I will return shortly.

eques

11:38 PM

If Christ has no human soul, he isn't fully, truly human.

Transcript for

Discussion between eques and Lee Woof…