The Church of Jesus Christ

Here is Mr. Davis’, latest post. Here and here previous posts that I believe is beneficial to my response here.

Mr. Davis’ post, I believe, may be summed up as this: The Father sent the Son, thus distinction and preexistence is proved.

He says this,

Given that we know that the Son is God, then only the Trinitarian view that both the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead makes any sense.

As a Modalist, I have to take offense at that! Is the Son God? If the Son was God, wouldn’t it be proper to say that God died on the cross, which is the historic patripassian position? Is that not erroneous to say? Can God die? Instead, the Biblical Doctrine (or Modalism, as some call it) says that God clothed Himself (by speaking Himself) with humanity (Christ) (Philippians 2:6) and died on the cross, so that God did not die, but the son (God personified) did, just as Bishop Zephyrinus said.

Of course, the Son = Logos. Logos = God Speaking Himself.

Knowing that Mr. Davis will answer me when he is done posting (and while I post an explanation of Modalism, versus just responses to him) I would like to ask this: How can three co-equal beings be sent by another? We know that the Father can send His logos and His pneuma, but can the Logos send the Father? If the Logos cannot send the Father, then they are not co-equal.

We know when comparing John 6:38 to Isaiah 55:11, we see this:

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

and

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Let’s examine Hebrews 1:3 and compare that with Wisdom 7:25-26 (argument = emanation)

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

and

For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν μεμιαμμένον εἰς αὐτὴν παρεμπίπτει. ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ

Essentially, the Logos/Son is an emanation from God, flowing from Him. ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma) is given several different meanings by Thayer: Reflected brightness, effulgence, or out-raying. There is debate among commentators whether the term apaugasma should be translated as “reflection” or “radiance” considered as an object. The former as a passive meaning, while the latter has an active meaning, implying that the son is active in his radiance from “the glory.” The author is using the metaphor of a reflection and its source to depict the relationship between the son and God. The son is the emanation from God.

The author uses other parallel phrases to describe Wisdom (parallel phrases and thoughts to Wisdom can be found throughout the New Testament) as both coming from God and being what God is without being God: “For she is a breath of the power of God, a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty…..an apaugasma of the eternal light and the unspotted mirror of the work of God and the image of his goodness.” The two phrases before “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” are emanationist. The two phrases following “an apaugasma of the eternal light,” however, have a passive meaning: “the spotless mirror of the working of God and the image of his goodness.” Thus, it is not clear how the author intends that the phrase “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” be understood, as active as a radiance or passive as a reflection. Which meaning should be assigned to apaugasma, however, seems to be irrelevant to the author’s purpose. The author of Wisdom is personifying wisdom as an attribute of God, and not speaking about Wisdom as an entity distinct or separate from God so to for the author of Hebrews. The image is of a man is not a separate person, nor the breathe, the thought, or the action.

The word in Isaiah emanates from God and carries His will, but not as distinct or separate. In John and Hebrews, we see that the logos/son is the emanation from God, but yet, not distinct, which is why the logos/son is sent from God, and is God without being the God (so that God did not die on the cross). God sent the logos/son to be the sacrifice, but the emanation from God was still God. When the Word finished God’s will, it returned to Him, not distinct, not separate.

Mr. Davis turns to John 3:31-36, but I feel that we have answer the ’sent’ question, so we will focus on verse 34, which reads:

For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure - NKJV

This goes back to post 4 which I answer the Trinitarian understanding of Isaiah 48:12-16. Contrary to Nicean opinion, this does not point to a Trinity. Does can the one person of the Godhead filled another? This verse, as opposed to Eph. 4.7, shows that all things were given to Christ to reveal, including the Spirit, to which He meted out. (John 20.22) The line has to be drawn to Isaiah 48:16 though in understanding that when God sends a messenger (prophet) He does in His spirit, yet for Christ, who is God, the Spirit is not given in measure to Him. (see Isaiah 42:1 and Zec 4.6) In Zech 7.12, we read that the words of God was sent in the prophets by His spirit.

One of the questions that has to be answered is, whose Spirit is it?

Spirit of God appears 12 times in the New Testament, spirit of Christ 2 times, and spirit of the Lord 5 times. The term holy ghost/spirit appears 89 times. (These numbers come from the KJV). Spirit of holiness appears 1 time. Spirit (with anything attached to it) appears roughly 230 times in the New Testament (excluding evil spirits and such).

In Romans 8.9 we read,

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

So, when the spirit is given, who gives it? In this one verse, Paul tells us that if we are in the Spirit, then the Spirit of God dwells; however, if we do not have the Spirit of Christ, then we are not God’s. So again, if they are co-equal, how can one send the other?

We cannot read into the text a separate, or distinction that is not there, especially when we have in surmountable evidence that no such separation exists, except for in the philosophies of man.