Is that an Italian dish?
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Is that an Italian dish?
TFTn5280
New member
Yes, PPS, let me first apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this one. I get slammed at work sometimes. And allow me to say that I am very aware of the dilemma relative to how best to translate this preposition. I say dilemma because not even the English translators of our most popular Bible versions are consistent in translating this most common of Greek prepositions, en, which is predominately translated "in," as relative to transitive/intransitive verbal tenses. For instance, in these very verses, Col 1.16-17 (which is one sentence in the Greek), en is translated both as "by" and later as "in" in the majority of our popular translations: the NKJV, NASB, and NIV; even a lesser known translation that I appreciate and use often in my own studies, the NET is consistent here. BUT the KJV translates en consistent with your argument. Allow me to post these verses now, using the NKJV and then the KJV so our readers my see that to which we are referring. There will be two instances of en to which I will be drawing attention:
NJKV For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, ... And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
KJV For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, ... And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In the first instance "by" is used to translate en in a clause containing a transitive aorist verb, which is inconsistent with lexical injunction, yet all of the above translations are consistent here; however, in the second instance "in" is used to translate en, both in the NKJV as well as the others mentioned above, excepting the KJV, even though it is an intransitive perfect tense verb: sunistemi, the verb about which you cautioned me.
I point this out only to say that I do not believe it is all as cut and dried as you indicate. Yes, certain lexicons do make note of the transitive v intransitive variation here, but I want to argue that that difference is exegetical in nature ~ determinative by the subjective preference of each translator and not objective in terms of a carved in stone, always consistent translative rule.
So, yes, I take your caution under advisement, and thank you for making note of it, but I believe per the context of this passage the inclusive, durative, and perhaps even panentheistic, "in" is a preferable translation of en here than is "by." On this one I'm going to go with the majority of Greek-to-English scholars as well as English translations, as opposed to that of the KJV and yourself. Although I am aware of your argument and do respect it.
Blessings,
T
I will be on tonight with my 2 Cor 5.14-21 commentary.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I understand the potential discrepancies. My focus is to avoid English false concepts that lean toward Panentheistic fallacy, and are consistent with the the clear additional ontological theme of salvation by putting on Christ and being in Christ relative to faith.
Sunistemi in this context and usage is more about instantiation as source and origin than about duration of remaining. The "in" is the place as source of origin for existence, not the place of existING.
Dia in the same sentence would speak to this, as well. Jesus is the literal eternal Logos, after all. All things of creation would have been "in" the Logos as noumenologicality before being instantiated into phenomenologicality of existence at the divine utterance.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Jedidiah
New member
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Do it.
Okay. It'll take at least minimal framework for the two fundamental understandings the Patristics missed: the applied definition of Rhema contrasted to the same for Logos; and to recognize that God alone is eternal, uncreated, and Self-existent as a singular hypostasis. In that pre-existence, there is nothing but God, and from that utter transcendence He created both sempiternity (the heavenly realm) and temporality (the cosmos with chronology).
God alone has inherent phenomenologicality. His Logos and Pneuma have both phenomenologicality and noumenologicality. All creation is noumenological and is given non-inherent phenomenologicality at its instantiation into existence at the divine utterance. The Logos and Pneuma are the qualitative two-fold singular procession of God's singular hypostasis from transcendence into both realms of immanence, when/as creation is spoken into existence and all animating life breathed into those realms.
Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about; the subject matter of thought and speech; the content for all context and concept; the substance that underlies the faculties and functionalities of all intellect and expression.
There is no Logos without Rhema, for without the substantial content of subject matter there can be no thought or expression (whether spoken or written).
Logos is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is expression it's also Logos (written/spoken). It's the wisely reasoned intelligent and rational ponderance, contemplation, and conceptual apprehension of subject matter for all expression. There are both Rhema and Logos in silence.
Rhema is the sword of the Spirit. Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword. Logos is the map for the territory that is the Rhema. Rhema is from reo (to speak), homonymic with reo (to flow); and -ma is the Greek suffix indicating "result of". Rhema is the resulting flow of speaking by the thrusting of the Logos.
Since God alone is eternal, uncreated, Self-existent, and transcendent; there was nothing (no thing) else to think and speak about. Since Rhema is the thing spoken about, and God is a singular transcendent hypostasis; and since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema; and since faith is a hypostasis...
Mary, as evidenced in Luke 1, heard the Rhema (God's hypostasis) for faith (a hypostasis) to come; and by her own profession of "be (ginomai) it unto me according to thy Rhema", the hypostasis of her faith hearing the very hypostasis of God conceived the hypostasis of Theanthropos in her womb. The Logos as the seed, by the breath of the Spirit, brought forth both the physical and spiritual life of Messiah as a supernatural procreative act.
Neither procession (at creation) nor conception are inception, and the eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. They're coterminous. THIS is the eternal Son, Fathered through procession and conception.
The hypostasis of faith hearing the hypostasis as God's Rhema conceived the Theanthropic hypostasis of Messiah.
There's more exegetical detail from Luke 1 and other passages, but the truth is in the lexicography as well.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Question re: the above . . .
Are you saying Mary's faith in the Rhema that she heard & believed & understood . . . actually produced and, "conceived" God the Son in her womb?
Can that be substantiated biblically as cause, rather than effect?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I wouldn't utilize any semantics that could ever indicate createdness for the eternal Son like "produced".
And this all precedes the Orthodox beginning point for formulation, the Patristics having omitted the creation of heaven and sempiternity (everlastingness) along with the cosmos and temporality with chronology.
Starting post-procession, what they've perceived as three hypostases is actually the singularly-processed two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions of the phenomeno-/noumeno-logical Logos and Pneuma, which are co-inherent and are conjoined to God's inherently phenomenological hypostasis.
God cannot be quantified or divided into parts. Multiple hypostases are parts. And the two "kinds" of eternity postulated by Aquinas in the 13th century are actually God's innate uncreated eternity and the created sempiternity of heaven.
In mathematics terms for contrast...
God alone is a line. Aidios. Eternal. Eternity.
The heavenly realm is a ray. Aionios. Everlasting. Sempiternity.
The cosmos is a line segment. Aion/s. Temporal. Temporality.
The Orthodox and anathema formulaics ALL combined the first two, while presuming not to. The Logos/Pneuma procession is the key. Exerchomai and ekporeuomai are both external. Since the hypostasis underlies the ousia (rather than the ousia "having" the hypostasis), the processions cannot be internal to the ousia. So the Logos and Pneuma must be inherently ontological and the procession must be economic and singular. God spoke and breathed forth His hypostasis external to Himself, and the intrinsic phenomenology and noumenology mean the internal Logos became the external Son (just as Tertullian and others insisted).
The noumenology of the Logos means the processed qualitative hypostatic distinction is the Son and not the Father. They are not discreet as multiple individuated hypostases.
The inherent hypostasis and the two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions are what the ACFs inferred to be three hypostases. They're not, and their co-inherence is innate, obviating the need for a nebulous inter-penetrating of perichoresis.
It is wholly effect. The Rhema as God's hypostasis is the cause, just as it is for all else. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema. The hypostasis of faith IS the resulting flow of God's pre-existent hypostasis AS the Rhema, underlying His ousia and its physis, with the Incarnate Logos being the prosopon.
Christology is according to the Chalcedonian Hypostatic Union. No Monophysitism; and thus no Eutychianism. No Dyohypostaticism; and thus no Nestorianism. No Apollinarianism, for Theanthropos had a human rational soul. But with some potential semantical concession to Cyrillianism as Miaphysitism as acceptable.
Arians perceive the procession of the Logos to be a (celestial) creative act.
Unitarians perceive the conception of the Logos to be a (terrestrial) creative act.
Sabellians perceive the hypostasis and two-fold processed Logos and Pneuma distinctions to be non-simultaneous and non-concurrent sequential or dynamic modalities.
Other anathema formulaics have misperceived in other manners and details.
Last edited:
TFTn5280
New member
2 Corinthians 5.14-21
Okay, I will be using the NKJV and addressing only certain Greek words.
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
The word for "compels" literally means "to seize without release": "For the love of Christ seizes us and won't let go."
This verse and the passage as a whole speaks to humanity’s ontology in Christ, our existent status as human beings in him. Hence in this verse "all" means all and not some, as in some who are elect. And "died" means dead. As dead as Christ was dead in the tomb, that is how dead all humans were in his death. He died for all; thus in his death, all died with him.
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
"Those who live" is likewise a reference to all humanity and not to certain individuals who have put their faith in Christ and have thus been born again (This is not an argument against faith in Christ or regeneration; it's just that faith is not in view here). We may know that “those who live” is inclusive of the all of v 14 by simple deduction: If everyone died in Christ's death, but only the faithful are alive in his resurrection, then with whom should the living share the Gospel? The dead are as dead as Christ was dead in the grave, that’s the point of this passage ~ not spiritually dead but dead as in no breath in them whatsoever. Again, they are as dead as Christ was when he died. Thus, the "those who live" is a reference to everyone who has breath in his or her lungs. Everyone died in Christ, and everyone rose with him in his resurrection; therefore the living should live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.
And here the word "for" should better be translated as "on behalf of": He died on behalf of all, their ontological status contained in him, "in order that" those who live, literally, "the living ones" should live no longer for themselves…
The important thing to take away from this verse is that all humanity died in Christ's death, and all humanity rose in Christ's resurrection. All humans are alive right now on Christ's side of the resurrection ~ and are included in him.
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.
"Flesh" in this verse is a loaded term. It speaks to the entirety of human ontology. It is the flesh that the Word became in the incarnation. It is humanity on the fallen side of Adam. It entails every aspect of our personhood, even our fallen state of being. And Paul says that we are to evaluate no one on these terms any longer ~ because dead on the fallen side of Adam means alive on Christ's side of resurrection. We regard no one as dead in Adam's flesh but everyone alive in Christ, in his resurrection.
And I will expand more on this in a bit but Paul says that Christ was once known according to this same flesh but not any longer. What happened? Christ took that fallen humanity to the cross with him and into the grave with him ~ and there he left it! In resurrection, Christ is victorious over everything that set itself against life in him: sin, death, the devil, even flesh, everything. In his resurrection we no longer regard him or anyone else according to that former humanity.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
My translation: "For this reason, if even one person is in Christ, a new creation he is; the old flesh (sin, sinful nature, sickness and psychosis, hence the entire range of human being) has passed away; behold, the new has come."
In this translation I turn to the UBS text rather than the TR because in this instance it fits better with the context of the rest of this passage.
"In Christ" is again a reference to ontological status in him in his incarnate person, in resurrection. The old flesh died in Christ; a new creation has come with him in resurrection.
This verse does not narrow the preceding verses down to a select few; instead it narrows it down to one. This is Paul's way of addressing “the many in the one" or said another way, "the all in the one." This is a common construct in the Mediterranean social world of his day: the one and the many; the many in the one. Here Paul is including all in his reference to the one.
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
Here "all" is neuter and is inclusive of all creation, humanity included.
The word for "has reconciled" is an aorist participle and should be translated thus: "... God, who reconciled us..." The Gr aorist tense conveys the certainty of a past event but does not take time into consideration. Therefore, no matter where we are in our walk of life, the aorist is always active: we are reconciled to God in Christ.
And again, "us" here is inclusive of all humanity because, as we learned above, we are to regard no one according to the flesh because all died in Christ and rose again with him in resurrection.
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
This is our ministry as believers, the Gospel we should declare to those who do not yet believe: that it was in the flesh or "incarnation" of Christ (again from verse 16) that God reconciled the entire world to himself, and that includes all who hear our voice, not crediting to them the sins they committed.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
"Therefore, be reconciled to God!" Here is the second half of the Gospel, the first half being: you died in Christ; you rose again with him; you are alive in him and are no longer to be considered as someone who is yet dead in the flesh, because Christ came in that same flesh, died to it and rose victorious over it; you are now included in his resurrection, just as you were in his death, and you are therefore a new creation. You stand now as one who is completely reconciled to God because of what Christ did in your place ~ Therefore, drop your enmity against God, befriend him and be reconciled to him!
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Two things about this verse, the second first: "might become" here does not convey possibility; instead it denotes certainty. The death Christ died was a righteous death. Sin had no hold on him; thus nor did death. His was a resurrection of righteousness. We died that death with him, in him, in his incarnate Person; thus the grave he took us to could not hold us either. Hence ours as well is a resurrection of righteousness, the righteousness of God in Christ.
Second point: this verse speaks plainly as to how that happened. The early Church Father’s had a saying that speaks profoundly to the incarnation of Jesus Christ: That which Christ did not assume, he could not heal. Christians live predominately today under a Doctrine of Christ that teaches them that Jesus came in a new kind of humanity, unrelated to our sin fallen flesh, and that he lived out his life in that perfect humanity, never giving credence to the outward temptations that he faced. He went to his death in the perfect state in which he came, but on the cross God imputed our sin to him, whereby he died in estrangement. In resurrection his righteousness is imputed back to those who believe. This is called the double move of God or the double decree.
This I see as legal fiction. Legally God decrees Christ a sinner. But he’s not. Legally God declares believers righteous. But we’re not. Both sides are legal but neither side is true. It is a legal fiction.
What Christ did not assume, he could not heal means that he assumed our entire flesh in his incarnation: sin, sickness, psychosis and all. That’s what it means that he became sin. Yet he fought back the proclivities of humanity in his flesh his entire life, beating and bending our self-sickened desires back to his Father. The temptations he felt were real temptations, internal temptations, because they were our temptations. Beating and pounding his way forward with blows, defeating the tyrants at every juncture ~ sin, sickness, psychosis, the devil, even the Law ~ so that when he went to the cross to face the final enemy, that enemy could not hold him there. There he took us with him in his flesh, and with him there we rose in righteousness, his real and true righteousness, his genuine ontological righteousness, not the kind that God blinks and winks at, but the real righteousness of God in Christ: Christ in us and we in him that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. Amen
T
EDIT: Just as this was not a passage that takes into view humanity's faith response to the evangel's call, neither does it speak to the consequence of rejecting that call. And so, to make it clear that the above is not my lone standing argument for universalism, I am not a universalist, nor do I believe that this passage should stand alone in any such discussion. In spite of the wonderful assurance that this passage should give Christians and the world alike, there will be those who hear its simple call and still reject the good news contained therein. However, their rejection will not have the power to nullify any of these truths, because here we are discussing ontology and not experience; our existence, not what we believe about or how we experience that existence. Everything contained in these verses will remain true in spite of their rejection. Apart from believing the Gospel content, however, they cut themselves off from participating in its truth. They destine themselves to live a lie while the truth passes them by.
Okay, I will be using the NKJV and addressing only certain Greek words.
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;
The word for "compels" literally means "to seize without release": "For the love of Christ seizes us and won't let go."
This verse and the passage as a whole speaks to humanity’s ontology in Christ, our existent status as human beings in him. Hence in this verse "all" means all and not some, as in some who are elect. And "died" means dead. As dead as Christ was dead in the tomb, that is how dead all humans were in his death. He died for all; thus in his death, all died with him.
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
"Those who live" is likewise a reference to all humanity and not to certain individuals who have put their faith in Christ and have thus been born again (This is not an argument against faith in Christ or regeneration; it's just that faith is not in view here). We may know that “those who live” is inclusive of the all of v 14 by simple deduction: If everyone died in Christ's death, but only the faithful are alive in his resurrection, then with whom should the living share the Gospel? The dead are as dead as Christ was dead in the grave, that’s the point of this passage ~ not spiritually dead but dead as in no breath in them whatsoever. Again, they are as dead as Christ was when he died. Thus, the "those who live" is a reference to everyone who has breath in his or her lungs. Everyone died in Christ, and everyone rose with him in his resurrection; therefore the living should live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.
And here the word "for" should better be translated as "on behalf of": He died on behalf of all, their ontological status contained in him, "in order that" those who live, literally, "the living ones" should live no longer for themselves…
The important thing to take away from this verse is that all humanity died in Christ's death, and all humanity rose in Christ's resurrection. All humans are alive right now on Christ's side of the resurrection ~ and are included in him.
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.
"Flesh" in this verse is a loaded term. It speaks to the entirety of human ontology. It is the flesh that the Word became in the incarnation. It is humanity on the fallen side of Adam. It entails every aspect of our personhood, even our fallen state of being. And Paul says that we are to evaluate no one on these terms any longer ~ because dead on the fallen side of Adam means alive on Christ's side of resurrection. We regard no one as dead in Adam's flesh but everyone alive in Christ, in his resurrection.
And I will expand more on this in a bit but Paul says that Christ was once known according to this same flesh but not any longer. What happened? Christ took that fallen humanity to the cross with him and into the grave with him ~ and there he left it! In resurrection, Christ is victorious over everything that set itself against life in him: sin, death, the devil, even flesh, everything. In his resurrection we no longer regard him or anyone else according to that former humanity.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
My translation: "For this reason, if even one person is in Christ, a new creation he is; the old flesh (sin, sinful nature, sickness and psychosis, hence the entire range of human being) has passed away; behold, the new has come."
In this translation I turn to the UBS text rather than the TR because in this instance it fits better with the context of the rest of this passage.
"In Christ" is again a reference to ontological status in him in his incarnate person, in resurrection. The old flesh died in Christ; a new creation has come with him in resurrection.
This verse does not narrow the preceding verses down to a select few; instead it narrows it down to one. This is Paul's way of addressing “the many in the one" or said another way, "the all in the one." This is a common construct in the Mediterranean social world of his day: the one and the many; the many in the one. Here Paul is including all in his reference to the one.
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
Here "all" is neuter and is inclusive of all creation, humanity included.
The word for "has reconciled" is an aorist participle and should be translated thus: "... God, who reconciled us..." The Gr aorist tense conveys the certainty of a past event but does not take time into consideration. Therefore, no matter where we are in our walk of life, the aorist is always active: we are reconciled to God in Christ.
And again, "us" here is inclusive of all humanity because, as we learned above, we are to regard no one according to the flesh because all died in Christ and rose again with him in resurrection.
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
This is our ministry as believers, the Gospel we should declare to those who do not yet believe: that it was in the flesh or "incarnation" of Christ (again from verse 16) that God reconciled the entire world to himself, and that includes all who hear our voice, not crediting to them the sins they committed.
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
"Therefore, be reconciled to God!" Here is the second half of the Gospel, the first half being: you died in Christ; you rose again with him; you are alive in him and are no longer to be considered as someone who is yet dead in the flesh, because Christ came in that same flesh, died to it and rose victorious over it; you are now included in his resurrection, just as you were in his death, and you are therefore a new creation. You stand now as one who is completely reconciled to God because of what Christ did in your place ~ Therefore, drop your enmity against God, befriend him and be reconciled to him!
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Two things about this verse, the second first: "might become" here does not convey possibility; instead it denotes certainty. The death Christ died was a righteous death. Sin had no hold on him; thus nor did death. His was a resurrection of righteousness. We died that death with him, in him, in his incarnate Person; thus the grave he took us to could not hold us either. Hence ours as well is a resurrection of righteousness, the righteousness of God in Christ.
Second point: this verse speaks plainly as to how that happened. The early Church Father’s had a saying that speaks profoundly to the incarnation of Jesus Christ: That which Christ did not assume, he could not heal. Christians live predominately today under a Doctrine of Christ that teaches them that Jesus came in a new kind of humanity, unrelated to our sin fallen flesh, and that he lived out his life in that perfect humanity, never giving credence to the outward temptations that he faced. He went to his death in the perfect state in which he came, but on the cross God imputed our sin to him, whereby he died in estrangement. In resurrection his righteousness is imputed back to those who believe. This is called the double move of God or the double decree.
This I see as legal fiction. Legally God decrees Christ a sinner. But he’s not. Legally God declares believers righteous. But we’re not. Both sides are legal but neither side is true. It is a legal fiction.
What Christ did not assume, he could not heal means that he assumed our entire flesh in his incarnation: sin, sickness, psychosis and all. That’s what it means that he became sin. Yet he fought back the proclivities of humanity in his flesh his entire life, beating and bending our self-sickened desires back to his Father. The temptations he felt were real temptations, internal temptations, because they were our temptations. Beating and pounding his way forward with blows, defeating the tyrants at every juncture ~ sin, sickness, psychosis, the devil, even the Law ~ so that when he went to the cross to face the final enemy, that enemy could not hold him there. There he took us with him in his flesh, and with him there we rose in righteousness, his real and true righteousness, his genuine ontological righteousness, not the kind that God blinks and winks at, but the real righteousness of God in Christ: Christ in us and we in him that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. Amen
T
EDIT: Just as this was not a passage that takes into view humanity's faith response to the evangel's call, neither does it speak to the consequence of rejecting that call. And so, to make it clear that the above is not my lone standing argument for universalism, I am not a universalist, nor do I believe that this passage should stand alone in any such discussion. In spite of the wonderful assurance that this passage should give Christians and the world alike, there will be those who hear its simple call and still reject the good news contained therein. However, their rejection will not have the power to nullify any of these truths, because here we are discussing ontology and not experience; our existence, not what we believe about or how we experience that existence. Everything contained in these verses will remain true in spite of their rejection. Apart from believing the Gospel content, however, they cut themselves off from participating in its truth. They destine themselves to live a lie while the truth passes them by.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
"the Patristics having omitted the creation of heaven and sempiternity (everlastingness) along with the cosmos and temporality with chronology....Starting post-procession, what they've perceived as three hypostases is actually the singularly-processed two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions of the phenomeno-/noumeno-logical Logos and Pneuma, which are co-inherent and are conjoined to God's inherently phenomenological hypostasis."
Could you repeat this?
Could you repeat this?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Definitely Fuller.
That Fuller dude hit a few air pockets.
So now everybody is a new creature, hunh?
What can I say?
:freak: eeeeee
Just be mindful of "sunistemi in the intransitive," Nick the great. I figger it's sorta like astroprojecting.
I was able to say this only after "Miller Time:"
"Starting post-procession, what they've perceived as three hypostases is actually the singularly-processed two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions of the phenomeno-/noumeno-logical Logos and Pneuma, which are co-inherent and are conjoined to God's inherently phenomenological hypostasis."
"Starting post-procession, what they've perceived as three hypostases is actually the singularly-processed two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions of the phenomeno-/noumeno-logical Logos and Pneuma, which are co-inherent and are conjoined to God's inherently phenomenological hypostasis."
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I am sorry, but this is does not come to my ears, as ringing true, but rather as an illogical fallacy. You are abandoning the law of non-contradiction. There is no such thing as a divine atonement that does not efficaciously atone. There is no such thing as man existing, when and if he can willfully choose to deny the provision of life.
TFTn5280
New member
What Christ accomplished in the atonement is true whether you accept it or not. Your acceptance brings you into consistency with its inclusion. Your refusal of it does not effect its efficacy. It only sets you against it, as one swimming upstream against a strong current. Your labors will not end until you relent and go with the flow.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who redeemed them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways,...
These are not believers, never have been, most likely never will be, yet they are redeemed. Even the most blatant of offenses does not undo what Christ has done in atonement. Now, reject him unto death and you likely will have committed the sin for which there is no pardon. The first death was covered in atonement. From it you rose with Christ. The second death you must now die alone.
Last edited: