Comments for PhilGons.com http://philgons.com Bible & Tech Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:14:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.1 Comment on Are You a Practical Modalist? by Melanie http://philgons.com/2008/01/are-you-a-practical-modalist/#comment-389899 Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:14:11 +0000 http://philgons.com/2008/01/are-you-a-practical-modalist/#comment-389899 I have always thought of the differences between Tritheism, Trinitarianism and Modalism as a kind of progression, perhaps existing between Panentheism and Unitarianism.

In my mind, Tritheism is a polytheist doctrine which asserts that there is a council of Gods, frequently referred to as the Godhead, which is composed of multiple, separate, but equal Gods, each of which rules over a separate domain or sphere of influence which together make up the whole of the universe. It is true that Tritheism closely resembles Trinitarianism in that they each tend to view the Godhead as God and recognize God as being made up of separate entities. However, the latter is clearly monotheistic.

In Trinitarianism, no single member of the Godhead is recognized to be independently “God” or even “a God” because the council that is “God” cannot exist without ALL of its members. It is only together that the members are regarded as God. So, while the members of the Godhead are recognized to be individuals, they are not regarded independently of each other, but as a singular whole. Also, the members of the Godhead, while typically regarded as equal, are also viewed as existing in a system of subordination, usually to the Father, the President of the council. This is what makes it monotheistic.

Modalism goes further than this to claim that the singular divine essence of God, which is shared by all of the “members” of the Godhead, is what actually defines the members as “God”. Subsequently, they believe that it is more accurate to view God as existing in multiple modes. Furthermore, the subordination to the Father mode is regarded as evidence that the Father is the natural state of God before he takes on form. A common analogy used to explain this is that of the water cycle. The water alone is God; it can remain in the sea or come down as rain, freeze into solid water or fill a vessel, but the water is the substance that is divine and what subsequently causes the multiple forms or modes to be identifiable as “God”. That which possesses the essence is regarded as divine.

Just for the sake of inclusiveness, I will mention that Unitarianism can be quickly differentiated from Modalism by its unique claim that the forms/modes are not actually part of God and should therefore not be identified as God. Rather, the singular divine essence alone, the H2O itself, is God, regardless of what form/mode it may take. Unitarians do not deny that God can take on forms or modes, whether physical or spiritual, but their difference rests in that they are very careful to differentiate between such forms/modes and the divine essence which anoints or indwells them, so as not to associate, equate, or otherwise mix (up) what has been created with the Creator.

These may not be super accurate as a means of differentiating the groups, but in practice, think they work fairly well. Helps at least to shed a little light on who you’re talking to. Keep up the great posts, and thanks!

]]>
Comment on Systematic Theology Series by David M Goetz http://philgons.com/2009/08/systematic-theology-series/#comment-389474 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:38:14 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=1346#comment-389474 Elizabeth Sung of TEDS is lined up, I believe, to write the anthropology volume for FOET. It will be her first published monograph, I believe.

G.C. Berkouwer’s Studies in Dogmatics are still worth consulting.

]]>
Comment on Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson Discuss Homosexuality and the Bible by Michael R Shannon http://philgons.com/2013/05/rob-bell-and-andrew-wilson-discuss-homosexuality-and-the-bible/#comment-389448 Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:03:30 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=2818#comment-389448 Much of the argument in favor of condoning homosexuality in the church falls into the ‘this is the way Jesus would believe if he just had all the facts.’

Jesus quite specifically addressed marriage as one man and one woman and he was not big on the idea of divorce. A place where Christians continue to fall short of the mark. And I believe Paul was an apostle and not a sociologist, so his thoughts on homosexuality are perfectly in line with the Old Testament.

The earlier post that mentioned the Bible is full of instances where the people choose against God is spot on. This happens to be another one of them. Our idols aren’t of gold. We make idols out of sex and self.

Michael R. Shannon
Author of: Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor!)
Available at: http://tinyurl.com/nv3v3rc

]]>
Comment on ESV, RSV, and Romans 5:3 by Sylvia http://philgons.com/2007/02/esv-rsv-and-romans-5-3/#comment-389075 Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:02:06 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=44#comment-389075 For the benefit of others like me who may not know, this verse has been revised to become “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,” in the ESV 2011 edition.

]]>
Comment on “Christian” Piracy and the Blinding Effects of Sin by Dan http://philgons.com/2008/01/christian-piracy-and-the-blinding-effects-of-sin/#comment-388312 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:48:33 +0000 http://philgons.com/2008/01/christian-piracy-and-the-blinding-effects-of-sin/#comment-388312 Another interesting issue here is what about watching illegally posted youtube videos? So one uploads a Christian or any other DVD movie or music, and it is there on youtube for years, millions of people watch it. Is it a sin to watch such movies or listen to such music? You may say no. Ok, then why is it a sin when you download the same material from a website? You may say it’s helping piracy to progress. But isn’t watching youtube videos helping youtube?

]]>
Comment on MS Word Tip: How to Replace Hyphens with En Dashes by Rick http://philgons.com/2009/01/ms-word-tip-how-to-replace-hyphens-with-en-dashes/#comment-387563 Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:52:25 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=908#comment-387563 I’m running Word 2003. I have a document of about 200,000 words and have to replace a dash for an en-dash. When I put in cntrl + – in the replace box for Find and Replace, nothing happens, over and over. Auto correct has the box marked for replacing dash for en–dash. Alt 0150 doesn’t help either. There has to be another answer for this because your solution won’t work.

]]>
Comment on Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson Discuss Homosexuality and the Bible by Tony Vance http://philgons.com/2013/05/rob-bell-and-andrew-wilson-discuss-homosexuality-and-the-bible/#comment-383968 Thu, 22 May 2014 16:51:17 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=2818#comment-383968 I’m sorry, but Rob Bell has the most non-biblical responses to Biblical questions every time I’ve heard (or read) his responses.

]]>
Comment on Emphatic Negation: Drawing Out the Riches of God’s Promises by Daring Confidence in Unshakable Promises | Gospel & Gratitude http://philgons.com/resources/bible/articles/emphatic-negation-drawing-out-the-riches-of-gods-promises/#comment-377991 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:00:29 +0000 http://philgons.com/?page_id=2280#comment-377991 […] is another article that goes into further depth on this topic and touches on some other key texts: Emphatic Negation: Drawing Out the Riches of God’s Promises. Any thoughts on this […]

]]>
Comment on How to Use Greek and Hebrew in Blog Posts by Using Greek Fonts in Wordpress | Learn New Testament Greek http://philgons.com/2010/04/how-to-use-greek-and-hebrew-in-blog-posts/#comment-377519 Sat, 08 Mar 2014 15:10:08 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=1949#comment-377519 […] For reference and more information see the tutorial at philgons.com […]

]]>
Comment on Greg Bahnsen Lectures and Debates on YouTube by Presuppositional Apologetics: Helpful Links | A Ruby In The Rough http://philgons.com/2010/04/greg-bahnsen-lectures-and-debates-on-youtube/#comment-377011 Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:39:26 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=1977#comment-377011 […] Greg Bahnsen Lectures and Debates and More Bahnsen Debates from Philgons Bible & Tech […]

]]>
Comment on “Faith Reviving” and Bob Kauflin by Rick Owen http://philgons.com/2007/08/faith-reviving-and-bob-kauflin/#comment-376588 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:43:25 +0000 http://philgons.com/2007/08/faith-reviving-and-bob-kauflin/#comment-376588 New URL for the Dropbox above: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Faith%20Reviving%20-%20effective%20atonement

]]>
Comment on Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson Discuss Homosexuality and the Bible by John Allen http://philgons.com/2013/05/rob-bell-and-andrew-wilson-discuss-homosexuality-and-the-bible/#comment-376585 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:52:39 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=2818#comment-376585 Robert,

What the church does in its reaction to cultural phenomena or trends and how God reacts can be completely different as I’m sure you’re aware. God does not depend on the church to make His decisions. The Hebrew Bible is full of situaltions where God’s chosen people chose against God. There are several issues in the NT where people who were serious about their faith commitment chose incorrectly (e.g. circumcision for the gentiles, marital relations between a woman and her stepson). The consequences that followed are meant to serve as a warning, I believe. Human society will always find something for which to make emotional appeals. As Phil stated earlier, that is why we have God’s word to keep us from making poor decisions in favor of emotion.

]]>
Comment on Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson Discuss Homosexuality and the Bible by John Allen http://philgons.com/2013/05/rob-bell-and-andrew-wilson-discuss-homosexuality-and-the-bible/#comment-376584 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:34:26 +0000 http://philgons.com/?p=2818#comment-376584 Robert,

To say that Jesus never dealt with this subject I believe is incorrect. I’m coming late to the discussion because I just found Phil’s site. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus refers to God’s original plan for committed relationships involving physical intimacy. He is quite clear, I think.

Also, to say that Paul was only concerned with homosexuality in regards to Greco-Roman sensuality would seem to be a bit off the mark. While it can be argued that in Romans chapter 1 Paul, in mentioning “Greek and non-Greek”, is not including Jews as a people group (like Philo and Josephus), he goes on to deal with the Jewish people in chapters 2 and 3, quoting the OT in asserting that all have failed God’s standard. Paul would have certainly been aware of OT history and the presence of male prostitutes at times in the temple. Even if he were only speaking to Greco-Roman practices, the argument still needs to answer the assertion that Paul didn’t feel the need to direct himself to the Jewish people because they already knew what the Torah required.

I’ve seen it argued that homosexuality is only condemned in the Torah because of it’s use in pagan cultic practices. However, this doesn’t seem to hold up when reading passages where it is mentioned, as the other practices condemned in those passages are clearly being dealt with in general, and not due to solely religious implications.

]]>
Comment on John Frame on 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Eternal Subordination by chime http://philgons.com/2008/03/john-frame-on-1-corinthians-1528-and-eternal-subordination/#comment-376314 Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:53:50 +0000 http://philgons.com/2008/03/john-frame-on-1-corinthians-1528-and-eternal-subordination/#comment-376314 Alex, Alex oh Alex… read it again please, is that right definition of these vs 27? ‘He’ refers to the God the father, but ‘Him’ refers to the Son.may be if u can read Amharic bible it has better explanation for this. the vs is very clear. may be it is vague when we compare with trinity. you know trinity is not the word of the bible. but we the christian use this word to explain God the father the son and holly spirit. I do believe in the presence of father, son and holly spirit but, trinity is not correct for me. also it is not biblical word. then when we go back to the 1 cor 15:23-29 at the last of the day, when the last enemy death subjected under the feet of Jesus Christ, also Jesus himself will made subject to him(God the father) who put every thing under him(Jesus). it is clear at last God the father will reveal his real name as it is written on John rev 3. then after God the father must be all in all as Jesus right now. because every thing only kneel for the name of Jesus right now(Philip 2), please do not give the wrong explanation for the word of God that gave us an eternal life.

]]>
Comment on Union with Christ by Le secret le mieux gardé de la vie chrétienne: l’union à Christ | NotreEglise Point Com http://philgons.com/resources/bible/bibliographies/union-with-christ/#comment-375857 Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:16:44 +0000 http://philgons.com/?page_id=1116#comment-375857 […] une belle bibliographie [ENG] sur l’union à Christ, celle proposée par Phil Gons est […]

]]>