Manifestations (re: Trinity v. Monarchy)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

I have recently been in private discussion concerning monarchianism/trinity
and thought this kind of coincided with something someone had posted
recently concerning manifestations vs. persons. (This is a somewhat edited
version)

charles


>>Please do tell me how Trinitarians feel uncomfortable with the definition
>>of manifestation.
>
>From Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:

>Man-i-fest - (vt) : to make evident or certain by showing or displaying
syn. see show.

>Man-i-fes-ta-tion - (n) 1 a : the act, process, or an instance of
manifesting b : something that manifests c : one of the forms in which an
individual is manifested d : an occult phenomenon; specif : MATERIALIZATION
2 : a public demonstration of power and purpose.
>
>Occultic inferences aside, I don't have a problem with the term
"manifestation" as it is.  I think that all trin folks recognize that God
does indeed *manifest* [verb] Himself in various ways. I certainly recognize
that God was *manifest* [verb] in the flesh, referring to Jesus (I Tim 3:16). 
>
>The problem is that "manifestation" is just too *vague* a term for
describing God's actual distinct *existence* as Father, Word/Son, and H.S.
The above definition refers to an "act", "process", "instance", "form",
"demonstration" etc, but not one adequately describes God's actual personal
*existence* as the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Nor is God's various "ways of
manifesting" unique to these 3.
>For example, Paul writes:
>
>        "Because that which may be known of God is MANIFEST in them, for
God         hath shewed unto them. For the invisible things of Him are
CLEARLY SEEN,         being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and         Godhead..." Rom 1:19-20 kjv
>
>From this scripture we can conclude that God is indeed *manifest* in the
"things that are made", but does this imply that "all creation" (like the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is in fact -- God Himself??? And why not?
Doesn't this logically follow from the use of "manifestation" in relation to
F.S.HS?
>
>.....of course not. That would truly be pantheism! 

>Oneness theologian David Bernard actually complained about limiting God to
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He actually wrote in his book on oneness
logically concluding that a manifestation was ANY way God reveals Himself.
Whether that included God's revealing himself thru His own creation, Bernard
did not say. But he certainly did not consider any special use of the term
in relation to the Father, Word/Son and Holy Spirit. 

It is no accident that Michael Servetus (who's something of a patron saint
to many oneness folks) seemed to have been heading towards a seemingly
pantheistic view of God. And apparently some of the earliest 3rd century
Monarchians also moved towards a Gnostic monism.
>
>Now I don't believe for a minute that all oneness folks are truly
pantheistic -- just more than a bit inconsistant with their own terminology.
This is one dangerous pathway that does seem to logically follow from
Monarchian's rather vague theology.
>
>I believe modes of being (or existence) is a more accurate reflection of
God's actual existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, than mere modes of
manifestation (or revelation).
>