You drop ism's like it ain't no thang
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
just wanted to capture this before you had a chance to edit it
-but
-my only question for you at this time is
-how did this happen to you?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I've held this position for nearly 20 years. When I came to TOL, I was so intent on my criticisms of the modern corrupted conceptualizations of the authentic historical Trinity doctrine, I mistakenly aligned myself passively with all who opposed the Trinity. That was a huge error in judgment, and I was blind to it for over 2 years until recently.
After an epiphany of how compromising that is in leaving others perceiving me as outside of orthodoxy, I've redoubled my efforts to emphasize the historical heresies and anathemas of the Christian faith so that my INTERNAL valid criticisms of the Trinity formulaic would be more credible and appropriately presented within the boundaries of orthodoxy (according to the Reformed tradition).
I realized that my compliant defiance was being interpreted widely as me being a mad rogue theological maverick who opposed everything orthodox, when in fact I can reconcile all of the historical doctrinal binaries throughout the Christian faith that have splintered and divided rather than uniting the Body as the Groom's Betrothed, awaiting the everlasting marriage to her Husband... The Eternal Son of the one true and living God.
All theology IS Christology, so I've especially focused on an intensity of apology for the eternal uncreated divinity of the Son; for I have found that the threshhold of salvific faith foundationally includes it.
My internal concerns remain, as I still validly contend that most modern professing alleged Trinitarians are functional Tritheists or some other form of anathema by degree. But that's an "in-house" matter, and it should be treated as such. Trying to uproot the tares within will also uproot wheat along with it.
(I do give bearth to the Eastern and Coptic positions of Cyrilian Christology and Miaphysitism as long as it's not overtly Monophysitism.)
what is it? -in 25 words or less - anyone?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The definition for heresy?
not being able to explain the Trinity is understandable
-but
-not seeing Jesus as God is not
-right?
what you are calling heresy? duh!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Well... Explaining the Trinity according to one's indoctrinated nominal perception INSTEAD of the available understanding of the meticulously formulated doctrine is NOT understandable; but your overall point is correct and valid (but often just an excuse for most to ignore it, which leads to the false conceptualizations).
Yes, it certainly begins there. But it also includes eliminating historical heresies and anathemas.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Originally introduced by Iraeneus (in his "Against Heresies" volumes), heresy was not necessary a pejorative term. It referred to differing theoretical schools of thought on various positions and viewpoints. It became more and more pejorative as the interanl and external onslaught against the Christian faith progressed in the early centuries.
Lexically, hairesis (heresy) is from haireo or haireomai; to choose, select, take up, elect. A form of religious worship, discipline, or opinion.
In contrast to schisma (schism), it is only theoretical. One can hold different views than the majority and remain in the same body, but that one is a heretic. But when he tears himself away (schizo), he becomes schismatic. Heresy it theoretically schismatic; schismaticism is practical heresy.
Since there are large modern movements that have literally torn themselves away from the Body and labeled themselves in various manners, it is practical heresy rather than merely theoretical heresy.
The 1054 East-West Schism was aptly named. The Reformation was an attempt at purging internal corruption that was heresy, so it was inverse (and the Latin Church was the culprit in both cases) with the intent of exposing the internal practical heresy that was schismatic.
The Latins ultimately refused Luther's priests, so they were once again in practical schism to what should have been an internal Reformation.
The splintering of Protestant denominations came about in various ways, and it would take a case by case examination to determine theoretical or practical heresy and assign them to whomever.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
To look a little further into lexicography regarding hersesy...
Hairetizo, choose, is related to the verbal adjective hairetos, that which may be taken. To take with the implication that what is taken is eligible or suitable; to choose by reason of its suitability.
Contrast eklegomai, meaning to choose because of love and desirability of attaching the object to oneself.
Hairetikos, heretic, pertaining to choice, capable of choice. As in Titus 3:10. See Romans 16:17, where one clearly belongs to the fellowship, but whom the fellowship eventually had to exclude.
Edit to add...
BTW, if Calvinists and Arminians and Open Theists (etc.) would ever understand the meaning of eklegomai, the Body could all speak the same thing.
Hairetizo, choose, is related to the verbal adjective hairetos, that which may be taken. To take with the implication that what is taken is eligible or suitable; to choose by reason of its suitability.
Contrast eklegomai, meaning to choose because of love and desirability of attaching the object to oneself.
Hairetikos, heretic, pertaining to choice, capable of choice. As in Titus 3:10. See Romans 16:17, where one clearly belongs to the fellowship, but whom the fellowship eventually had to exclude.
Edit to add...
BTW, if Calvinists and Arminians and Open Theists (etc.) would ever understand the meaning of eklegomai, the Body could all speak the same thing.
Cross Reference
New member
That would be most dangerous. Whose mindset would lead it, yours?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Only schismatic heretics like you Hegelian Kenoticists would say it's dangerous for all Believers to speak the same thing in defiance of scripture. But that's what happens when you know nothing of linguistics or the historical doctrines of the faith for nearly two millennia and substitute your own according to a large modern cultic movement.
It makes you cringe to have to give up your autonomy to the truth of God's Spirit in the Word.
There's only one mind that matters for a viewpoint. Being renewed in the spirit of the mind.
Every Apostle and every early Patristic and every later theologian and linguist would say exactly what I'm saying. You're the heretic, by definition; and it's not just theoretical, but practical; so you're a schismatic, just like the entirety of the New Apostolic Reformation and Third Wave Charismaticism who have also tossed two millennia of the authentic historical orthodox Christian Faith in favor of whatever seems right to them in their own viewpoints.
You're the danger, and pointing at others. As the Prophet said to David, "Thou art the man."
Cross Reference
New member
LOL!!! Then why would you me in union with you?? 
I don't want to be in union with you. You don't have your act together for me to desire that. How long you say you have been a Christian? Perhaps I should ask first if you claim to be? If you are, you are at best a cessationist.
I don't want to be in union with you. You don't have your act together for me to desire that. How long you say you have been a Christian? Perhaps I should ask first if you claim to be? If you are, you are at best a cessationist.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I don't unless you repent unto salvation.
I know. I'm hypostatically translated into Christ, having put on His prosopon. You deny the hypostatic union whereby that is the Gospel of savlation. Of course you don't want to be in union with me. You want your own seem-right way of long-standing historical heresy and schism that you ignorantly insist is the Christian faith.
You worship another god and have a false christ. You're a product of Hegel and several German Liberal Philosphers, not the Spirit of the one true and living God.
Nothing is about me, though. It's all about the authentic historical Christology of the Faith. You deny it and are in schism to it, along with millions and millions of others who have been duped by the lie.
For only 18 years, and after being lost for 28 years before that for the same reason as you and many others.
I'm a Biblical and Historical Continuationist. The gifts have not ceased. The false pseudo-gifts you embrace are works of the flesh, and are not historical Continuationism.
I've seen more notable miracles and healings than Benny Hinn and others have faked in their entire anti-christ careers as hirelings and heretics in schism to the actual Christian faith while using all the jargon and nomenclature to deceive millions.
Cross Reference
New member
LOL!! Ditto! LOL!! You don't know a thing about me nor have you inquired and don't care because everyone is less than you anyway. So what's the point, right?, you obviously have no relationship to Christ Jesus.
<what conceit> How old are you, anyway? To me, you are just a kid. But that is just my educated opinion based upon what you have displayed on this forum. Gnostism fits you as best I can figure. Your claims don't speak allegiance to Christ but rather the sureness of your education in christology. Sad shame because you can't go any further.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
If I didn't care, I wouldn't take the time to correct you and inform you of two millennia of orthodox doctrine and what it excludes that you ignorantly believe.
I'm 53. And of course you have to think I'm a kid. The weight of what I've said is too much to handle without coping mechanisms to justify oneself and impugn others.
Cross Reference
New member
Sonny jim, I have 25 years on you. I have seen the good bad and the ugly in pentecostalissm since 1947, of which I am one but NOT as you presumed of me. That is why I call you the fool, a court jester. You are ignorant and believe you walk in the light. You are wrong because you don't know God and Jesus to know them both as the only light and claiming you alrready do. I know better. You don't know Him at all nor do you apparently care to.
Come off your high horse and repent.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Then you are without excuse. 78 years is plenty of time to have accessed what is and isn't orthodoxy for the Christian faith and excluded what is not.
There's not much variance. Your current doctrine says it all about you. You deny orthodox Christology in as extreme a manner as is possible.
Yes, the folly of your ignorance and immaturity at an elder age when you should know better.
Yeah, tell the Apostles and the Patristics and all the linguists and theologians and philologists of the last two millennia who ALL would consider you a schismatic heretic and anathema to the faith. ALL of them.
Extreme Kenoticism, Adoptionism, and Nestorianism are ancient heresies. You place your own opinions and experiences from modern diluted Pentecostalism above two thousand years of the Christian faith. And you defend it to the death.
There are plenty of 78yos who believe plenty of things. Age is not synonymous with truth and knowing it.
Cross Reference
New member
You are a bigger fool than I gave you credit for being.
You should explain what you believe to the S.A.Indians in Christ who have no idea they are missing out on what you alone espouse as being the only way to Christ Jesus. Perhaps you should consider going there with your Greek lexicion in hand to straighten them out in their primitve believing for son-ship in the Father. Try telling them there is no such relationship available to them because they haven't swung on your gate. I hope that "nonplusses" you to a little self examination..
You should explain what you believe to the S.A.Indians in Christ who have no idea they are missing out on what you alone espouse as being the only way to Christ Jesus. Perhaps you should consider going there with your Greek lexicion in hand to straighten them out in their primitve believing for son-ship in the Father. Try telling them there is no such relationship available to them because they haven't swung on your gate. I hope that "nonplusses" you to a little self examination..
Last edited: