tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post430909560824561545..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Swedenborg Was Not a Modalist (Sabellian)Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45344842931376698192018-01-23T13:23:10.640-07:002018-01-23T13:23:10.640-07:00My pleasure and many thanks!My pleasure and many thanks!Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5332183726994882902018-01-23T13:13:36.289-07:002018-01-23T13:13:36.289-07:00Hi Jon,
Thanks for posting this correction. I hav...Hi Jon,<br /><br />Thanks for posting this correction. I have found that the idea that Swedenborg was a modalist is one of the more persistent errors about Swedenborg's theology among traditional Christians. I appreciate your willingness to correct that common error.<br /><br />In response to your brief commentary:<br /><br />It is somewhat difficult to translate the sense of Swedenborg's Latin <i>essentialia</i> in this context into English. Traditional translations of Swedenborg's works generally just use the cognate "essentials" and leave it at that. The more recent New Century Edition of Swedenborg's theological works, currently in publication by the Swedenborg Foundation, takes a stab at actually translating it by using "essential components." But that still doesn't quite capture what Swedenborg seems to be saying. I don't think Swedenborg is actually talking about "parts" of God as that would normally be understood, though in a more abstract way that can be seen as what he's talking about.<br /><br />The best way to gain an understanding of the meaning of Swedenborg's <i>essentialia</i> in this context is to think in terms of his analogy of the Father as the soul, the Son as the body, and the Holy Spirit as the actions of a human being.<br /><br />Soul, body, and actions are not exactly "parts" or "components" of a human being, except in a more abstract, meta sense. Each exists in its own distinct realm of reality or existence. They are not of like nature the way the head, torso, and limbs of a body are of like nature, so that these can be called "parts of the body" in the usual sense. However, the soul, body, and actions are "essentials" of a person in that a person cannot exist <i>as</i> a person without all three existing together, and together constituting the person.<br /><br />This is how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three <i>essentialia</i> of the one Person of God in Swedenborg's theology.<br /><br />To take up the "function and form" language, I would not say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different "functions" of God. Nor, of course, are they different "forms" of God (the modalist view). Neither formulation quite captures it.<br /><br />A better way to use that language in relation to Swedenborg's trinity would be:<br /><br />The Father is the <i>substance</i> of God.<br /><br />The Son is the <i>form</i> of God.<br /><br />The Holy Spirit is the <i>function</i> or <i>action</i> of God.<br /><br />Once again, these are not really "parts" or "components" of God in the usual sense. Perhaps saying that they are different "elements" of God would come closer, if "elements" is thought of somewhat abstractly.<br /><br />About your final statement, Swedenborg would not normally say that Jesus Christ <i>is</i> the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but rather that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are <i>in</i> the one God, who is one and the same as the risen and glorified Jesus Christ. (During his lifetime on earth Jesus Christ had a finite human part from his human mother Mary that, by the time of his resurrection, had been entirely left behind and replaced with an infinite Divine Humanity.)<br /><br />I hope this helps to clarify some of your remaining questions about Swedenborg's Trinity.<br /><br />Thanks again for posting this material.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com