ECT Our triune God

[Lon]

Experiencing the love of Christ surpasses knowledge!

:think: John 4:23

 

[Tnkrbl123!]

It is so simple, so clear and so beautiful! And without controversy! Those that harden their hearts and blind themselves to this amazing truth are missing out on experiencing the fullness of life lived completely united with our God our Father, our God our Savior Jesus and our God the Holy Spirit.

Those that insist that Jesus is not fully God and fully human are missing the fact that
ALL have fallen short - not most, but ALL, without exception (if there were any that are not corrupted by sin, and a perfect spotless lamb then God would have said so. But God says ALL are full of sin and have fallen short) Can a sinner save Himself? Can a sinner take away sin? NO!
only God is perfectly Holy and only God can take away sin.

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38

*For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:19-20

"For there is ONE GOD and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." -1 Timothy 2:5-6

 

[Tnkrbl123!]

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.

He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
-Hebrews 9:11-15

 

[Lon]

Apostle Paul says that Jesus is the LORD GOD

Apostle Paul says that Jesus is the LORD GOD

Blog from Right Divider:

Paul says that Jesus is the LORD GOD

Rom 14:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (14:11) For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
This is the passage that Paul is quoting from:
Isa 45:21-23 (AKJV/PCE)
(45:21) Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me. (45:22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else. (45:23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Again Paul says this in Philippians:
Phil 2:9-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (2:11) And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Lon]

Isaiah 40:3

Isaiah 40:3

The Word was God....the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

You need more proof? Who was John the Baptist? The voice crying in the wilderness.

Prepare ye the highway for OUR GOD. It is written, and it came to pass.

 

[JudgeRightly]

THREE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE TRINITY IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR FALSE. If any one of these questions can be answered 'no,' then the Trinity can be rejected as an unbiblical belief. But if all three can be answered 'yes,' then the concept of the Trinity can be accepted as true. 1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons? 2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God? 3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God? The answers: 1. Are three distinct persons mentioned? YES. A. The Father (1 John 3:1) B. The Son (1 John 1:3) C. The Holy Spirit (John 14:6; 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14; Romans 15:30; Ephesians 4:30) 2. Are each of these persons referred to as God? YES. A. God the Father (1Thessalonians 1:1) B. God the Son (John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9) C. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) 3. Is there only one God? YES. (see Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:5; 45:22)

FOR ANYONE WHO REJECTS THE TRINITY AS BIBLICAL:
Please show how the verses provided do not answer in the affirmative all three questions asked.

 

[fishrovmen]

PPS,
What is the difference between physis and ousia?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS,
What is the difference between physis and ousia?

Ousia is the special (species) designation as the essence or particular wealth of existence. It’s the “what-ness” of any particular animate or inanimate noun.

This is in contrast to the “who-ness” that is the underlying hypostasis. Hypostasis is hypo- (under) and a grammatical form of histemi (to stand). The hypostassis is the substance, which is the foundational and underlying objective reality of existence. This was translated through Latin into English as “person”, but does not mean an individual entity or being; so moderns don’t comprehend the term correctly.

Physis is the nature of each ousia, for each being has specific characteristics and attributes. It is the nature of man, for instance, to be bipedal and walk upright with a particular manner of movement inwardly determined for outward action.

So divinity has a specific nature and humanity has a specific nature for their essential wealth of existence and its outward demonstration in economy of action.

The ousia (essence/being/“what-ness”) and physis (nature) are not each other, but are inseparably inter-related. Each being has a nature. The hypostasis (substance) underlies the ousia with its nature, and therefore the hypostasis determines the quality of the ousia, the nature, and any outward economies of action.

The prosopon is the face/presence/appearance as that which is physically presented toward any other. This is often translated as person, just as hypostasis is rendered as person. English is a horrific final determiner of truth in regard to these kinds of minutiae.

It is the physis that has the hypostatic and ousiaic qualities determined and outwardly demonstrated. That’s why physical comes from physis.

Man is a whole, not merely a compound of parts. These aspects of God and of man are not to be considered according to modern Reductionism as Partialism. Man cannot exist in any of these parts without being a whole. These are qualitative aspects of human-ness.

I say the above to caution anyone who would address man as having a soul that is a distinct part of man apart from his entire constitution (which is NOT composition; the difference being that man is not composed of parts, but is constituted as a living soul). Man “has” a soul because man “is” a (living) soul. The soul cannot be extracted or distinguished from the whole man as the Gnostics and others do. Any address of the various aspects of man’s constitution are to be considered Inquiry, not Reductionism.

 

[fishrovmen]

PPS,
Thank you for the above definitions. I am truly trying to grasp your understanding of these terms.
I have another (hopefully not stupid) question.
If faith is a hypostasis, and it "has" our (believers who have heard the rhema of God) hypostasis; then does the hypostasis of faith transform our original hypostasis, but our prosopon remains the same in the created cosmos? I am thinking of "prosopon" as what is visible to the beholder.
Also, you had mentioned several times in your posts that many do not understand what it means to "put on Christ".
Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Are these the correct ordered layers of the "protocol" stack?

----------------
prosopon
----------------
ousia
----------------
physis
----------------
hypostasis
----------------

Graphically arrange these four "boxes" such that "the whole" can be visualized. Perhaps one should be vertical with others alongside the vertical?


AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS,
Thank you for the above definitions. I am truly trying to grasp your understanding of these terms.
I have another (hopefully not stupid) question.
If faith is a hypostasis, and it "has" our (believers who have heard the rhema of God) hypostasis; then does the hypostasis of faith transform our original hypostasis, but our prosopon remains the same in the created cosmos? I am thinking of "prosopon" as what is visible to the beholder.

This is a brilliantly insightful and accurate compound question/statement.

Faith is the hypostasis “of things hoped for”... This means pistis (the Greek anarthrous noun for faith, to which may be added the article) is the foundational underlying substanding reality of existence for the things in which we trust (elpizo) with earnest expectation and anticipation based upon promises made of obtaining something in the future (in this case, a state of being and condition for our own hypostasis as determined by the hypostasis of God Himself through the hypostasis of faith itself).

This means it is the very quality of God’s own hypostasis that determines the quality of our own hypostasis by partaking of the Divine nature. And since God’s hypostasis is transcendantly timeless, it is this hypostasis of faith that functionally brings that state of being into reality of existence for us in the chronological timeframe of this physical life by drawing “forward” (relative to the duration of time in chronological form) from the future into a now-ness that is the qualitativeness of the ultimate eventuality of our everlasting state of being as a new creation in the new heavens and earth “to come”.

Faith quite literally brings our ultimate everlasting state of being into this life by underlying all that we trust and foundationally drawing it forward as a function of our hypostatic union with the Son.

It is the hypostasis of faith that is the means of our hypostatic union with Christ because of the humanity He took upon Himself by nature (while remainging wholly and authentically Divine). Being in the form (morphe, inward form) as God, and taking on the schema (outward form) of a servant. His morphe never ceased being what it was from eternity (an incommunicable attribute of God as divinity, not an endless durative progression of time). In this manner, neither God the Father nor the eternal Logos as the Son ever changed.

Also, you had mentioned several times in your posts that many do not understand what it means to "put on Christ".
Can you elaborate on that?
Thanks

According to the above explication, it is only a step further to have the revelation of what it means to “put on Christ”. If we are in hypostatic union with Christ, and He has (according to the Davidic example in I Kings 18 with Jonathan pre-figuring this reality) engaged in a robe exchange; then it is Him who took upon Himself the sin (singular anarthrous hamartia, the sin condition and state of being of all of humanity) that results in physical death from spiritual death (thanatos as the antithesis of zoe life, the constant communion with God).

In this robe exchange via hypostatic union (and since every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon) through which we literally (not to be confused with tangibly) put on the prosopon of Christ. It is then this outward face/presence/appearance that is thus presented as our own. God looks upon us in this manner according to the imputed righteousness in Christ alone. He sees a prosopon that is the outward quality of the underlying qualitative existence, which is the hypostasis of the Christ to which we are conjoined.

By this, we know it is not our own economies of action or their qualities as derived and/or determined in/by/from/through our own inate hypostasis, but solely in/by/from/through the hypostasis to which ours is conjoined in hypostatic union.

This functionality is the anthropological restoration of the Edenic lapse of man which corresponds to the cosmological “fall” of the entire creation. It is resurrection from death to life, not merely a ceasing of outward economies of action as sinnING. It’s the end of death and sin for man, and a pre-figuring of the everlasting state of being. We are truly born again, and will not be hurt of the second death; for Christ’s finished work is the death we died with Him, being crucified and no longer living according to the life of the flesh (its nature as determined by our inate hypostasis and its dysfunctionalized inward qualitative existence that has determined death for the whole man... spirit, soul, and body).

We are authentically robed in the righteousness of Christ Himself, and God looks only upon that prosopon relative to our standing before Him. He sees the once-for-all sacrifice... the Son... the eternal and uncreated Logos... the very prosopon of the Word made flesh... as the atonement for our sin (and thus, sins).

This is a standing based upon the state of being of Christ alone, not our own. It will be administered to us functionally for outward economy in this life and beyond because it is ontologically administered FOR that outward functionality by the inward and underlying hypostatic union that is by THE faith that comes out of THE report, which is by means of the Rhema of God/Christ.

This is pure biblical Monergism of the finished work of Christ and our crucifixion with Him beyond the bounds of time.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Are these the correct ordered layers of the "protocol" stack?

----------------
prosopon
----------------
ousia
----------------
physis
----------------
hypostasis
----------------

Graphically arrange these four "boxes" such that "the whole" can be visualized. Perhaps one should be vertical with others alongside the vertical?

AMR

I don’t like to “stack” them in this simplistic manner; but if I “had to” stack them, it would be something like this:

Prosopon

Ousia > Physis

Hypostasis


Sarx is the inreaching outer tangible flesh which is also an intangible general term for the inward inclinations based upon the quality of the hypostasis being outwarly manifest by the ousia, its physis, and the prosopon.

The physis of the ousia is best understood in that correlation; being that which brings forth the “who” of the hypostasis and the “what” of the ousia into physical reality as observable ontology and economy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The key point in the above is to understand that it is the hypostasis that underlies the entire whole being, and that each individual is NOT just a member of a species. The special designation (ousia) as “kind” is secondary to the individual designation. The “who” is substanding to the “what”.

This is one of the distinctions between Eastern and Western Theology that was originally reconciled by the Cappadocians leading into Constantinople for the 381AD Ecumenical Council. Though the West acquiesced to the terminology changes, it maintained the sense of the ousia “having” the hypostasis; and this is why the Filioque is employed by the West while eschewed by the East. The Western juxtaposition of the terms “required” an additional clarification to prevent full or semi- heresies relative to Theology Proper. The East maintained the simple form and arrangement of terms and their relation, therefore not needing the Filioque (and in fact meaning the Filioque conflates ontological and economic procession for the Holy Spirit, also implying problematic issues for addressing the Son and His place of co-equality with the Father).

The East is correct. The West departed from Basilian theology, though very subtly and indirectly. And with Protestantism being the progeny of the West, the Filioque is rooted in the West (and is arguably needful with the incorrect juxtaposition of hypostasis/es to ousia).

 

[fishrovmen]

This is a brilliantly insightful and accurate compound question/statement.

Faith is the hypostasis “of things hoped for”... This means pistis (the Greek anarthrous noun for faith, to which may be added the article) is the foundational underlying substanding reality of existence for the things in which we trust (elpizo) with earnest expectation and anticipation based upon promises made of obtaining something in the future (in this case, a state of being and condition for our own hypostasis as determined by the hypostasis of God Himself through the hypostasis of faith itself).

This means it is the very quality of God’s own hypostasis that determines the quality of our own hypostasis by partaking of the Divine nature. And since God’s hypostasis is transcendantly timeless, it is this hypostasis of faith that functionally brings that state of being into reality of existence for us in the chronological timeframe of this physical life by drawing “forward” (relative to the duration of time in chronological form) from the future into a now-ness that is the qualitativeness of the ultimate eventuality of our everlasting state of being as a new creation in the new heavens and earth “to come”.

Faith quite literally brings our ultimate everlasting state of being into this life by underlying all that we trust and foundationally drawing it forward as a function of our hypostatic union with the Son.

It is the hypostasis of faith that is the means of our hypostatic union with Christ because of the humanity He took upon Himself by nature (while remainging wholly and authentically Divine). Being in the form (morphe, inward form) as God, and taking on the schema (outward form) of a servant. His morphe never ceased being what it was from eternity (an incommunicable attribute of God as divinity, not an endless durative progression of time). In this manner, neither God the Father nor the eternal Logos as the Son ever changed.



According to the above explication, it is only a step further to have the revelation of what it means to “put on Christ”. If we are in hypostatic union with Christ, and He has (according to the Davidic example in I Kings 18 with Jonathan pre-figuring this reality) engaged in a robe exchange; then it is Him who took upon Himself the sin (singular anarthrous hamartia, the sin condition and state of being of all of humanity) that results in physical death from spiritual death (thanatos as the antithesis of zoe life, the constant communion with God).

In this robe exchange via hypostatic union (and since every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon) through which we literally (not to be confused with tangibly) put on the prosopon of Christ. It is then this outward face/presence/appearance that is thus presented as our own. God looks upon us in this manner according to the imputed righteousness in Christ alone. He sees a prosopon that is the outward quality of the underlying qualitative existence, which is the hypostasis of the Christ to which we are conjoined.

By this, we know it is not our own economies of action or their qualities as derived and/or determined in/by/from/through our own inate hypostasis, but solely in/by/from/through the hypostasis to which ours is conjoined in hypostatic union.

This functionality is the anthropological restoration of the Edenic lapse of man which corresponds to the cosmological “fall” of the entire creation. It is resurrection from death to life, not merely a ceasing of outward economies of action as sinnING. It’s the end of death and sin for man, and a pre-figuring of the everlasting state of being. We are truly born again, and will not be hurt of the second death; for Christ’s finished work is the death we died with Him, being crucified and no longer living according to the life of the flesh (its nature as determined by our inate hypostasis and its dysfunctionalized inward qualitative existence that has determined death for the whole man... spirit, soul, and body).

We are authentically robed in the righteousness of Christ Himself, and God looks only upon that prosopon relative to our standing before Him. He sees the once-for-all sacrifice... the Son... the eternal and uncreated Logos... the very prosopon of the Word made flesh... as the atonement for our sin (and thus, sins).

This is a standing based upon the state of being of Christ alone, not our own. It will be administered to us functionally for outward economy in this life and beyond because it is ontologically administered FOR that outward functionality by the inward and underlying hypostatic union that is by THE faith that comes out of THE report, which is by means of the Rhema of God/Christ.

This is pure biblical Monergism of the finished work of Christ and our crucifixion with Him beyond the bounds of time.

Thanks for this post. I am glad that you said that Christ's prosopon is not tangibly put on, that is where I was confused.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

BTW, this is literally the inverse of Open Theism. Open Theism attempts to superimpose time upon the timeless God who created it in Proleptic form. Everything is an already/not yet of reality relative to faith and this realm versus everlasting states of being.

Open Theism confines prolepsis and an apocalyptic and cosmological understanding to be subjegated to an eschatological and anthropological understanding when they are inverse. At some point, Open Theism is heretical in both its whats and hows/whys, etc.

The future is in no way “after” the past or present for God. And we must use time terms to express all things, so even saying things like “simulataneous” is not completely accurate.

God pervades time, so there is no sequence of its fleeting ontology that affects His economies of action within its sphere. Open Theism is a poor answer to wrong questions based upon lexical ignorance and stubborn refusal to set aside presuppositions that are grossly in error.

We are partaking of the Divine nature from time into timelessness “before” God’s utterance to create. Our ontology is grounded in the very hypostasis of God the Father and the Son, and thus supercedes any consideration of economies as action. Creation was an action, and it is still unfolding according to the Divine utterance. The “loop” that is chronological time determines nothing.

There’s much more, lexically, to explicate these things, but that requires a dissertation and ilustrations and/or verbal presentation in an extended teaching setting.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks for this post. I am glad that you said that Christ's prosopon is not tangibly put on, that is where I was confused.

Yes, exactly. That’s where Artistotelian corruption has tainted the hearts and minds of moderns. His positing that the tangible is preeminent to the intangible is the bain of theology, however astute and applicable many of his works are in a ministerial sense (rather than magisterial).

 

[fishrovmen]

PPS,
Another question if you don't mind.
Is the paliggenesia concurrent with the hearing of the rhema?
I don't want to get off topic but don't know where else to ask.
Thanks

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS,
Another question if you don't mind.
Is the paliggenesia concurrent with the hearing of the rhema?
I don't want to get off topic but don't know where else to ask.
Thanks

It’s a proleptic paradox of already/not yet. We are already saved, but not yet; having received the earnest of our inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession, and the post-judgment receipt of the end of our faith.

The new birth is inaugurated/initiated relative to functionality in this realm at the hearing of the Rhema; but hearing (Romans 10:17) is NOT a verb, it’s a noun. It is the thing heard. The report. The message.

My accurate contention is that virtually all false doctrine and false dichotomies of doctrine arise from English necessarily translating Greek nouns in a manner that causes moderns to build concepts of nouns as verbs.

So it isn’t so much an issue of an adverbial aspect (when) of a verb. With hearing being a noun, it is more about the qualitative nature of the thing being heard. The report/message/good news saves us. Perpetually. Which means it’s a proleptic paradox of having been saved from the foundation of the earth (indeed even from eternity, which again is not durative time but the state of being apart from createdness in any form), but not yet being saved in the sense of the completed action relative to the whole man and the cosmological redemption.

Salvation is secondarily anthropological, but primarily cosmological. Apocalyptic, not merely eschatological.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Further clarifying...

The ontology of our salvation is exclusively in the hypostasis of God (and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit), so the economy of its occasion an occurance relative to our temporal existence in this lapsed realm is wholly secondary. Time and concurrence are merely means and manners of attempting to express non-temporal things in temporal terms via human language.

So... The being and doing are disinct considerations, though they are also at once absolutely inseparable. This leads to all kinds of false concepts of attempted explanations and pseudo-systematics in theological meanderings.

God accomplishes our salvation economically as He has fore-ordained, and it is a being and becoming as much as it is a punctiliar event. Salvation is not only cosmic, it is a perpetuity in chronological time as we know and experience it.

Those who are and will be saved have always been saved.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don’t like to “stack” them in this simplistic manner; but if I “had to” stack them, it would be something like this:

Prosopon

Ousia > Physis

Hypostasis


Sarx is the inreaching outer tangible flesh which is also an intangible general term for the inward inclinations based upon the quality of the hypostasis being outwarly manifest by the ousia, its physis, and the prosopon.

The physis of the ousia is best understood in that correlation; being that which brings forth the “who” of the hypostasis and the “what” of the ousia into physical reality as observable ontology and economy.

How would "one What, three Whos" be represented using these terms?

Prosopon - Cannot per PERSON

Ousia > Physis WHO - PERSON

Hypostasis - WHAT

Or is PERSON encircling all the above?

Perhaps you could draw it electronically in Powerpoint or Paint and paste/attach the image.

AMR