I intended to send this out some time back, but never got around to doing so.
J.P. Moreland is a Christian philosopher extraordinaire. I’ve read a lot of his material, and he is a hardcore evangelical intellectual (yes, those terms can go together!). So it was surprising when I heard him speaking of the supernatural during a radio interview with Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. He spoke of how the Gospel is spreading in other parts of the world—particularly the Muslim world—through supernatural events. I’ve heard a lot of amazing stories of the miraculous in Pentecostal circles, but I have to admit that these stories are even more amazing. And I’m not talking about healings! Listen to the broadcast. You’ll be glad you did!
The interview took place during the second hour of the program, so jump ahead to the 58:00 marker where the interview begins (you may have to wait a few minutes for your computer to download the broadcast to the point where you can jump ahead that far).
Thinking to Believe 
July 17, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Thanks for the link. The number of similar testimonies from all different nations even the USA about dreams and visions God is giving to Muslims about Jesus is awesome.
Lee Stoneking gave a great testimony at the LA Campmeeting this year of a Christian that teaches Jesus is God from the Koran and some of the harrowing experiences this man had at the hands of Muslims.
LikeLike
July 18, 2007 at 10:48 am
What about God sending the Virgin Mary all across the globe and here in the USA, and performing other miracles through the Catholics?
LikeLike
July 18, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I’d be interested in knowing how that Christian teaches that from the Koran. I haven’t read all of the Koran, but I have read select verses that deal with Jesus, and they are pretty clear that He is not the Son of God.
What about the appearances of the Virgin Mary? I don’t know. She’s been showing up on toast and bridge walls lately, so I don’t give it too much clout. In all seriousness, not every claim to an experience means it is veridical. Each must be evaluated on its own merits. It could be that these miracles J.P. Moreland is talking about are not veridical, although I tend to doubt that due to the source.
Jason
LikeLike
July 25, 2007 at 11:53 am
Jason,
I’m curious to know if you have ever interacted with STR (blog, call-in, bulletin board, etc). I posted on their bulletin board a while back but never got much of a response. I really enjoy the content and listen to the podcasts regularly, but it would be interesting to me to hear/read an exchange between someone such as yourself and a member of the staff – if not Greg himself. To Greg’s credit, I’ve noticed that he will cede a point here and there when pressed and openly admit a lack of sureness on a given subject.
A caller on the show from the past weekend related a thought experiment concerning the trinity. Of course Greg worked through the analogy with him on the air and showed how it failed (the failure was more to do with the proclivities of ‘personhood’ necessary to a trinitarian paradigm yet lacking in the analogy). Greg wisely steered the caller away from a reliance on analogies, simply stating the propositions of scripture [i.e. 1) God is one; 2) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in distinct ways; and 3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are referred to as fully God] and declaring that the trinity is just so (man would I have liked to have heard someone fill in a few relevant details right about then). It seems like the one chance occasion I’ve heard the issue of Oneness broached on air was dismissively shrugged off as the re-emergent heresy of Sabellianism/Modalism; this was some time ago so the details are fuzzy. But I would think that in the interest of clarity for his listeners/readers, though, he might pursue an opportunity to dialogue with a cogent adherent.
Dale
p.s. J.P Moreland was on again this past weekend and broached the same topic. Apparently, the supernatural is all the rage.
LikeLike
July 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Dale,
Is there a difference between Oneness and Sabellianism/Modalism? If so, what is the difference?
Arthur
LikeLike
July 25, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Arthur,
While I suspect that Jason would do a much better job elucidating the differences between Oneness and Sabellianism/Modalism, and I certainly would defer to him seeing this is his blog, the short answer is yes, there is a big difference between them.
Sabellianism, as understood only by the extant references made by its detractors, says that God the Father is the only person in the Godhead. This is basic Monarchianism and no different from what is at the heart of modern Oneness theology – namely, uni-personality. Now whether Sabellius was a ‘modalist’ cannot be known for certain, owing that his aforementioned detractors wrote the history; but he is certainly labeled one and as such differs from Oneness.
Modalistic Monarchianism, as opposed to dynamic Monarchianism which maintains God’s oneness at the expense of Jesus’ deity, maintains God’s uni-personality at the expense of the genuine biblical distinctions between Father and Son. Modern Oneness theology avoids this error and therefore avoids the label ‘modalism’.
The difference between Oneness and modalism is similar to the difference between Oneness and trinitarianism. The question of the distinctions between Father and Son (and to a lesser extent Spirit), both their genuineness and locus, is the heart of the matter. Oneness asserts the genuine nature of the distinctions, avoiding their placement between ‘modes’ or ‘offices’ (modalism) or between Jesus’ divine and human natures (Netorianism). Modalism leaves the distinctions devoid of coherence in the face of the biblical data – as does Nestorianism.
Whereas trinitarianism pays lip service to monotheism by insisting the oneness of God is found only in essence, it then asserts the conceptual aberration of ‘tri-personality’ by placing the distinctions between eternal ‘persons’ of a single God essence. Here the distinctions are outside or beyond Jesus’ person, yet eternal in nature, walking a slippery slope towards tritheism.
Oneness theology rightly maintains uni-personality in the face of biblical monotheism and rightly maintains the distinctions as genuine in the face of the biblical data by placing them beyond Jesus, yet temporal in nature. The distinctions, according to modern Oneness theology, are existential and found between God’s (YHWH) transcendent unlimited existence as essential deity and this same God’s theandric existence as limited humanity (Jesus of Nazareth). This is in no way different in principle to trinitarianism’s assertion that a divine person (God the Son) began a limited human existence (Jesus of Nazareth) while continuing to exist as unlimited deity. Oneness theology asserts the same thing – it’s simply the identity of the divine person we’re at odds over.
Dale
LikeLike
July 25, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Dale,
No, I have never interacted with STR’s message boards. I’ve made a couple of comments on the blog, and called in once.
Yes, Greg thinks the only way to reconcile those three Biblical teachings is Trinitarian theology. That’s not so. I know from his own admission that he rarely looks at the blogs, and he doesn’t interact on the message boards due to his busy schedule. Calling him on the show would be the only way to discuss the issue, but I highly doubt it would be profitable. The subject is too vast to cover in the tiny amount of time each caller is given. Besides, he’s the man with the mic. Callers can’t give monologues. Greg’s a good man. I wish he could see this particular issue more clearly.
Jason
LikeLike
July 25, 2007 at 8:27 pm
would you say that oneness theology has more in common with “economic trinitarianism” then it does with classic modalism ?
coral cook
LikeLike
July 26, 2007 at 1:00 am
Arthur,
The first thing we should recognize is that it is difficult to determine the exact theology of the Modalists to make a good comparison against Oneness theology. Their writings/beliefs only survived within the writings of those who disagreed with them. We cannot be sure how accurately the church fathers understood and/or conveyed the Modalists’ theological perspective. Given how often we build straw men of others’ positions today, and given the nature of theological discourse back then, I would not be surprised in the least if the Modalists were misunderstood to a degree.
I also think we need to separate Sabellianism from Modalism. Sabellius supposedly believed that God has manifested Himself to man in three successive roles: as Father, then as Son, and then as Holy Spirit. A few things should be noted. First, this differs from what other Modalists taught. Secondly, it’s not even clear that this is what Sabellius taught. Modern scholars are reassessing if this was really his view. Thirdly, Sabellius was only one representative of Modalism. Even if he did teach that God existed in three successive modes, this was a later development within Modalistic theology and is not representative of the historical movement as a whole (just as some who claim the “Oneness” label have some heterodox understandings of Oneness). Finally, it should be clear that modern Oneness believers do not believe God has existed in three successive modes, so the term “Sabellian” to describe our theology proper is improper.
I don’t know of any Oneness adherents who believe God was Father, but then ceased being Father to become Son, and then ceased being Son upon ascension so that He could become Holy Spirit. The Biblical data is so clearly against such an idea (which is why some scholars are persuaded that Sabellius himself could not have been so naïve as to teach it). Oneness believers maintain that God has made Himself known to man in three different ways: as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three of these modes/revelations/roles (terms typically employed by people in our camp) are simultaneous. The only one of these modes that cannot unequivocally be said to be simultaneous to the others is that of the Son, because the Son was a manifestation of God that began at the incarnation (a specific point in time later than the other manifestations of His person). From the point of the incarnation on, however, the three ways in which God has made Himself known are believed to be manifested simultaneously.
Enough about Sabellius. What about the other Modalists? From what I have read of these guys in the patristics (assuming they were accurately representing what they taught), I think it’s safe to say that modern Oneness theology is close kin to the Modalists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We both claim God is uni-personal, and that Jesus is that one person’s manifestation in human existence. Where I think we may differ is in our emphasis. The Modalists so heavily emphasized the oneness passages that on a practical level they denied any real distinction between the Father and Son. That is an error.
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2007 at 1:01 am
Coral,
No, I would not say that.
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2007 at 7:55 am
Jason,
Thanks for the explanation, successive versus simultaneous. Though I see the terms “successive modalism” and “simultaneous modalism” used.
BTW, it’s interesting to see which topics generate interest, and which do not.
Arthur
LikeLike
July 26, 2007 at 10:03 am
I find that many trinitarians are only Economic Trinitarians and only the educated tend to be ontological & economic Trinitarians.
The problem with speaking to economic trinitarians, is that their beleifs are very close to modalism except with non-biblical language (i.e. Trinity, persons, God the Son).
Where would you say our position divides between economic trinitarianism besides the use of unbiblical language?
Coral J. Cook
LikeLike
July 27, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Coral,
What would you say distinguishes economic trinitarianism (ET) from modalism? And in what ways would you consider modern Oneness theology more closely alligned with ET than modalism?
I agree with you that many Trinitarians are not true Trinitarians. They tend to be either generally Oneness, or generally tritheistic in their view, but with some confused language as you point out.
My problem with economic Trinitarianism is partly the name. Trinitarianism is a theologically loaded word. I would not use it in any fashion because it instantly causes our minds to think of the ontological Trinity.
Another reason is that I don’t see a gulf between economic and ontological Trinitarians. Economic Trinitarianism vs. Ontologic Trinitarianism is a difference between function and being. But one can only function according to their being. If God is an economic Trinity, why think He is not an ontological Trinity? How can God function as three if He is indeed not three? To me, ET tends to lead to OT.
But my thoughts are not entirely informed, nor entirely clear on this issue. I would be interested to hear what you have to say.
Jason
LikeLike
July 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Arthur,
Yes, it is. Of course it’s also interesting to see how off-topic the conversations in the comments section can become. In a post about a philosopher who is promoting God’s continued supernatural activity in our day and age, we are talking about whether Oneness is a cult, and how it differs from modalism and economic Trinitarianism, and nothing about the supernatural. Go figure!
Jason
LikeLike