Good evening, PPS!
Good aftahnewn.
This would only be a problem (in this specific context) if it couldn't explain God's transcendence and immanence but it can.
It cannot. Though much lip service is paid to doing so with bare assertions, it simply cannot. Transcendence is most often considered heaven; and the lip service to any created heaven is insufficient. Uncreated phenomenon and created phenomena are incongruous.
It is wholly untenable that God (the Father) as a hypostasis created through the Son hypostasis. He spoke.
CT would agree with this.
No. It seems so and is declared so, but it most definitely does not except in lip service by bare assertion.
If you would attempt to demonstrate it explicitly, that would help you see you can't.
And this. But not this,
God created everlasting. God created heaven. And He inhabited everlasting (aeviternity) when/as He created ALL.
if by that you mean the Creator has subject Himself to creation (here time or place.) Like all creation, He sustains it and is present to it but not circumscribed. In heaven, we could say He is more present but this would be by being better known.
But this bare assertion doesn't account for it. HOW did the uncreated transcendent God create and inhabit His creation while remaining eternally transcendent. Aquinas did NOT account for this.
Let me first thank you for being so ready and willing to continue to elaborate on your views. It's much appreciated. Would you explain why you qualify the rhema with "objective" and/or "subjective" and what you mean by "subjectively realized in words"?
I have a book. It's an object. It exists independently of anyone thinking or talking about it.
But it has objective reality of existence. It's not just noumenon. The book has/is phenomenon.
I walk into a room and, through a series of operations in my intellect (using logos), know it's a particular book. I meet up with my neighbor to describe what I've seen (using rhema). I wouldn't say I've "subjectively realized in words" the book, for "realized" to me almost implies I've created an instance of the book so I must be missing something you're saying.
Creatively, if you had the power and innate attributes, the book WOULD BE an instance. Instantiation. But the book, like all created things, only has a phenomenality that was created. We cannot and do not create or recreate.
But God isn't created, so His Rhema (His objective reality) impressing itself (hypostasis) upon His Logos is not a creative act because He is eternal phenomenality. Also in His eternal noumenon is creation, with no intrinsic phenomenon until uttered into existence.
Granted, I would say my perception of the book is subjective (whereas God's, for example, would be completely objective).
And that's the distinction for Theology Proper. God's own foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence is the only uncreated phenomenon. There was no thing (nothing) else. So while all of creation was instantiated into phenomenal existence, His Logos and Pneuma proceeded forth according to their eternal noumenality AND phenomenality.
The ONLY true objective reality is God. And God eternally and intuitively contemplated, comprehended, and apprehended the entirety of His objective reality to be expressed by His Logos.
The express image OF God's hypostasis was the impress of that hypostasis upon the Logos by His (objective) Rhema, to be re-presented in created phenomena with a prosopon.
That's why the Logos "was with" (pros accusative) God. Toward. Focus. He "formatted" His hypostasis for creation, and it proceeded forth/proceedeth as the Son and Holy Spirit. A two-fold qualitative procession, not an internal ontological processional quantity of hypostases later economically processed.
If you could fill in the missing parts in my example, would appreciate it once again! :first:
That's how I understand them. Do you reject that or are you just elaborating?
Elaborating.
The very foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence (hypostasis) is the thing thought and spoken about by the Logos in subjective words as the objective Rhema.
God realized His own hypostasis in subjective creation as the Son, distinct from Himself and joined perichoretically by the processed noumenon of His Spirit (set apart into creation from Himself as phenomenal Spirit).
Beyond Father and Son, the. Holy Spirit is most definitely NOT an indivduated uni-phenomenal hypostasis. God, by His Logos, pierced and divided asunder His (noumenal) Spirit out from Himself ("Soul") as phenomenal Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God's OWN Spirit, set apart by being distributed into creation. Creation was noumenon until given phenomenon at the divine utterance. Only God's eternal uncreated Self-noumenon is compatible with creation.
That last sentence is crucial to understand, and it's what the Patristics and (particularly) Aquinas missed and omitted (though doing the requisite lip service of bare assertion).
God's innate uncreated eternal phenomenality is NOT compatible with creation, including heaven. Creation is another phenomenality of existence.
We, by being born from above, are made compatible with Him. Communing from time into His timelessness. Foreknown. Predestinated. "Before" creation IN the eternal Logos, which proceeded forth as the Son and was Incarnate as Theanthropos. But there is no "before" for the timeless one and only God.
Partaking of His divine nature. Now. But there is no "now".
