Great, now shore up the "Modalist" side of what would be my rebuttal?
An ousia is not a hypostasis is not a prosopon. They are concurrent rather than modal in any fashion.
My view appropriately represents a transcendent ousia as God; a two-fold singular heavenly-imminent hypostasis of the Logos and Pneuma; and the Logos ultimately incarnate in flesh as an earthly-imminent prosopon.
This contrasts to the DyoHypostatic one ousia (presumed to be transcendent, but only heavenly-imminent; which is the problem); three heavenly-imminent hypostases (also presumed to be transcendent, but also only heavenly-imminent); and one of the three hypostases became flesh, hypostasizing as a prosopon.
If they are all the same being, then Modalism, is the heresy, right?
No more than DyoHypostatic Trinity. But lets define heresy. It originally meant simply "teaching", indicating different "schools" or "systems" of cohesive content that was unique from others. After Iraeneaus' "Against Heresies", it began to have a modified etymology that was negative, indicating "wrong teaching".
Schisma/schizo is the more egregious term over hairesis. Hairesis (G139) indicates a tendency opposite the accepted doctrine or practice. Hairesis is appropriate if the established doctrine and practice is incomplete or incorrect to any degree. Whereas schisma means to split or tear; a division in mind or sentiment, resulting in factions.
If someone is wrestling with monotheism and presenting an alternate solution because they don't accept the unbiblical components of the established DyoHypoTrin doctrine, it becomes an issue of the heart as to whether that opposition is merely hairesis or if it is schisma.
There is so much denominational hairesis AND schisma amongst Protestants, it's not any different. Many others who deny the ontological Deity of Christ still adamantly affirm the Son as God by identity. They insist Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, as opposed to a Docetic view. They insist the Logos became flesh as the Son. They affirm the virgin birth, the blood atonement for sin, the resurrection, and the ascension.
So I process the term "heresy" much differently than others who equate it with schism. And they're no more "disruptive" than DyoHypoTrins are about their pet divisions of doctrine, with represents heresies or schism.
Since everyone is wrong by degree, that's my reconciliationist criteria for evaluating the potential salvific faith of others in a general sense.
Ebionites, LDS, and JW are predominantly outside the faith. Two earthly parents, three individuated gods enabling man to become divine, and created angels becoming a created non-divine Son are all one step beyond the perimeter. But there are a minority that may still have salvific faith. I don't know the bounds of God's mercy and grace. But the structure of doctrine is clearly beyond the faith.
I place Arians, Sabellians, and Unitarians within the perimeter of potential salvific faith; just as I do Dyohypostatic Trinitarians and Triadists. Tritheism is beyond the faith. Binitarians are not inherently beyond the faith, nor are Pneumatomachians.
What's your answer to that?
An ousia is not a hypostasis is not a prosopon. They are distinct and concurrent, not Modal. I'm very definitely not a Modalist of any form.
Do you just want me to post my beliefs?
I'd presume you adhere to the PDF. I read it.
I suggested the PDF, remember?
I read it. As always, I have the same criticisms. In a distinctly non-Binitarian manner, I take issue with the false presentation that the HS is a distinct individuated hypostasis ("person"). And in the PDF, the Holy Spirit is referred to both as a "person" (hypostasis) AND a distinct "being". That would be an ousia. The two terms cannot be utilized to define the HS (or the F/S).
Dyohypostatic Trinity stands or falls on the correlation between the alleged multiple hypostases to the alleged singular ousia. They can't be intermingled. It's sloppy and entitled Theology Proper because the O/ortho Trinity view is so predominant.
The HS is God's own Spirit, just as your spirit is your own spirit (indwelt by the HS). In the two passages (Romans 8:27; where the HS is referred to in regards to mind and will functionality, the renderings are phronema and boulomai, respectively.
With phronema, the -ma suffix indicates the result of the action. Firstly, phronema is not nous or noeo, etc. Phronema is the result of one's thinking. That's the appropriate conjoined functionality of the spirit relative to the soul. It does NOT indicate the spirit is the "seat" of an individated mind. It does NOT even remotely imply an individuated person.
With boulomai, it must be contrasted to thelo/thelema. Boulomai expresses merely a PASSIVE desire or propensity, whereas thelo expesses an active volition and purpose. Boulomai is the inward predisposition from which active volition proceeds.
Boulomai denotes the UNconscious willing or an inner decision or thinking (comparable to phromena's result of thinking rather than being a "mind"); while thelo indicates conscious willing and denotes an active resolution urging on to action.
The HS exhibiting phronema and boulomai does NOT inherently indicate individuate sentient consciousness of a mind and a will. Instead, it points to the fact that the spirit is intimately and functionally conjoined to the mind and will of the soul.
Even the Early Fathers knew this when they first formulated multiple hypostases. A hypostasis, even in the original DyoHypo Trinity doctrine didn't intimate multiple individuated centers of sentient consciousness. That's a very modern contrivance based on the English term "person/s" and the presumption from how O/orthodox doctrine has drifted according to the English terms.
And it's a series of inferences to come to the erroneous conclusions that the Holy Spirit is an individuated "person". That comes from the concept being fitted to scripture rather than drawn from the text. That's why I refer to it as eisegetic rather than exegetic. The PDF attempts to accumulate data to support a view rather than drawing the view out of the text.
In any case, phronema is NOT a nous. And boulomai is NOT a consciously functioning will. Phronema is the result of the thinking of the mind of the soul. Boulomai is the UNconscious predisposition and propensity. That's a necessary confluence of spirit-soul interfunctionality.
We can talk about either your's or mine, I don't care which, but don't ask me to debate 'what you have a problem with' when you are simply throwing out terms you like. I 'can' look them up but such is tediious, especially if it isn't wanted or appreciated. Set groundwork for your contention and I'll enjoin and rejoin. Fair enough?
I think I've begun to do so. There's a bit of meat on the bone above.
Again, I've no problem with you saying our language sucks.
Our language doesn't suck. It just takes labor to position it as the receptor language for the Greek. Rather than word by word sufficiency, English generally requires a phrase, sentence, paragraph, page, or treatise to represent Greek terms and definitions. It's an opportunity to dig out and express concisely, IMHO.
I'm the one who said it is indeed inadequate for the job.
It's not inadequate. It's laborious, and requires didactic understanding of truth in the process.
Rather, I agree with you we can be better if not exacting and I'm asking 1) what you suggest and 2) what the better would be but I'm unconvinced that the church hasn't derived the present terms from scripture. This is a proper expectation of exegesis.
I disagree, but I'll just let it go after this. I don't consider superimposing terms upon/into the text to be exegesis. Nor do I consider taking a concept TO the text and being able to fit multiple terms to each part of the concept to be exegesis. Either multiple hypostases were read INTO the text, or multiple hypostases were read OUT OF the text. It was the former. That's classic eisegesis. And I'll leave it at that and concentrate on content instead.
PPS - I'm not hair-splitting. There's an exponential difference between three hypostases and one hypostasis. My view is closer to the other monohypostatic views. That's how far DyoHypos Trinity is from the truth.
hypostasis - the reality of a thing or being as it exists (substance)
hypostatized - to represent something as a reality
Within monohypostatic circles are modalist and unitarians. Such requires a very careful walk separating from heresies, which the creeds avoid.[/quote]
The Creeds introduce as much heresy as they avoid. Fact. And they morphed to accomodate the development of agreement on terms between East and West.
In the end, I don't care about all that except to know it for accurate reference. There aren't multiple hypostases in the text. Period. Nor are there multiple prosopoa for F/S/HS if one utilizes hypostasis in the singular for ousia. There isn't a triplicate term in the text that can present multiple "persons". That's because God isn't multiple "persons". In fact, God isn't "person/s" of ANY quantity. Only the prosopon of the Son as the Logos Incarnate was a prosopon.
Again, imo, there is a huge difference between arguing about how Christ is God and denying He is God. I think most are correctable but also think bible study is 'required' (and quite a bit of it) to correct these views.
But the entire Socinian movement came out of opposition to the fact that scripture doesn't present multiple hypostases. The DyoHypo Trinity is culpable for anathematizing others when they challenged its unscriptural foundation of terminology. I hold Dyohypostatic Trinitarians responsible for the very existenc of the Socinian theologies; and that includes Unitarians and Christadelphians. Their doctrine was a response to the errors of Trinity that were leveraged.
Why? A lot of people are yet puzzled by their understanding of God's nature and being. Such comes, imho, only as we continue in scripture, so why would it have troubled you to this degree?
Because I was lost without salvific faith, having been in a pulpit for 12 years after Bible College. My heart had not heard the Rhema for true faith. That's significant.
I'm not understanding the dilemma. I've definitely been on the lesser heretical lists prior to study.
Then how can you place others who are on those lists into a non-salvific scenario if you had salvation while on those lists? It's about wrestling with the "threeness" of F/S/HS while maintaining monotheism. Arians, Unitarians, and Sabellians do that.
I wasn't denying Christ as God but wasn't theologically mature. I've room yet for precision, to be certain and think it important, but am not sure wy such caused the duress. Can you explain that a bit? Thanks.
I was lost. Without Christ. Without salvific faith. My heart had not heard THE Rhema. My heart had heard A Rhema of DyoHypo Trinity. It wasn't salvific for me. That's why I'm so adamant; and it's also why I've spent 15 years in fasting and prayer, digging the reconciliatory truth out of the biblical langauges to correct the errors.
Denying the deity of Christ, is a much larger and serious contention.
I disagree. It's a part of rejecting the error of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine for many. Nobody has been presented with the absolute truth that reconciles them all. I don't consider the Deity of Christ to be the threshhold for salvific faith. Many have some nebulous misunderstanding that the Son is created in some manner. Having a sorted doctrine to the same affect is no more egregious.
I think OTHER doctrine in company WITH denying the Deity of Christ are the problem. Works soteriology is a huge obstacle, and eclipses any belief in some kind of createdness for the Son. There's grace and mercy for that. Works soteriology is at odds with salvation by grace through faith.
Which does not deny His deity.
Neither does Triadism or Tritheism. Deity requires an appropriate "how" for the "what", too. Most Oneness believers affirm the Deity of Christ, but you likely exclude them, too. "How" far exceeds "what" for any factor of theology. They are co-important.
"Out of" is yet stuck on 'substance.'
Nope. Exerchomia and ekporeuomai for the Logos and Pneuma are from the essence. Huge distinction. It's not about substance. It's about transcendence versus eternity. That's the missing component that no one understands.
Substance yet carries physical baggage properties.
Essence doesn't, relative to transcendence. And these were the terms YOUR doctrine introduced for conflict. I'm reconciling them.
What I do know is there is equitability in Scripture where first "God" creates the world and then Paul tells us Christ does.
Right. As the Logos. The Logos wasn't an individuated "person" of three. The Logos was... the Logos. The internal Logos became the external Son. Being co-terminous, the Logos didn't have to always be the Son. The Son's eternal pre-existence was as the Logos. The Son's eternality is that of the Logos.
Where the "Son" is called "Everlasting Father" and etc.
And yet the Son is not the Father.
We mustn't write over revelation to form an opinion that derides any form of scripture integrity.
That's exactly what the DyoHypoTrin doctrine did!!!!
I gave warning the first couple of sentences above. We must avoid the heresies and walk the tightrope between them, but I firmly believe the triune position necessary for only this reason: to avoid the heresies. I'm not too caught up in disagreeing in-house discussion of those who are triune, but that we are avoiding those heresies that dishonor God.
But God is NOT triune in ANY sense of there being multiple "persons". That's the problem. The English term "person/s". And it came from the unbiblical fallacy of multiple hypostases. Period. It's heresy, just like the others it impugns.
Agree. We can come up with better terms but all terms we use have a propensity for supporting one or another heresy (in this case, as stated, modalism or arian).
Nope. I can provide all the appropriate biblical terms.
It seems to me, we need to struggling balance of terms to keep tight on the rope and stay balanced, which is also why I think it hairsplitting. I think hairsplitting good, but important to keep perspective too. I see this one as an 'in-house' triune discussion.
Until recently, I wouldn't even label myself as triune. I've embraced it to be more effective in correcting the errors. But I'm not triune in any sense that you and others are. There are NOT multiple "persons".
I see our triune view as the least developed doctrine, and language inadequate to completely apprehend God.
Laborious, tedious, and fraught with difficulty. Not inadequate.
As such, well-meaning attempts to keep others from heresies is work done well.
DyoHypoTrin is heresy, especially according to the "lighter" Greek definition.
But saying it that way has a dangerous modal tenor and definitely would lead future generations into modalist thinking.
Nope. I can delineate the difference quite clearly. If not, you'd presume I was a Modalist like many others do.
The terms we use may not be to your exact liking (or mine) but I do think they help maintain an important scriptural and doctrinal balance.
No. They're not scriptural. They were superimposed generally from the Greek language rather than the inspired uasge OF the Greek language in the text.
These heresies deny and cloud, and rewrite scripture. We don't see cults as truly Christian for good reason.
And I include DyoHypoTrin in this assessment.
Rewriting one portion of scripture leads readily to a different God and different Salvation rather quickly.
Yep. Like superimposing multiple hypostases upon/into the text.
And I beg to differ (suffice it to say). Logically, as well as I believe Biblically, you cannot have language fully disclosing Him but rather disclosing what finite (limited) amount we know, accurately.
You evidently discount the scope of oida knowledge (or likely haven't paid attention to what it is).
Such leaves error in 'our' hands, not that the scripture isn't sufficient. I agree it is, but we are talking about two different things: Enough vs full-disclosure. I don't believe finite capable.
I do. We've been created with the capacity and capability of logos in His image. There's a measure to which God is ineffable. That doesn't mean we can't know Him. That's the reason He embodied His Logos in flesh. It wasn't to conceal Himself.
To me, it sounds like you are trying to walk the same tight rope. I think it behooves you to understand the difference between those within orthodoxy and without as one who claims to be within, and I'm using orthodoxy little-o.
I don't consider "orthodoxy" to be the same thing you do. It simply means "right teaching". DyoHypoTrin isn't.
You should be aware of which is which and I think you conflating the actuals backwards.
Yes, you think that.
Someone denying Christ is God is missing a huge chunk of scripture.
As is anyone ascribing multiple "persons" hypostases to God.
Perhaps you haven't spent enough time with cults? TOL should remedy that fairly quickly (and one reason I think they are welcome here, for that purpose).
I'm fine with them to a point. I think of them in much the same terms as DyoHypo Trins.
It is probably worth getting into a a discussion over but will take time to walk and wade through. You can use this thread for that but you might think about starting your own thread dedicated 'only' to that subject. It'd give people time to study, others would post informing links and information, and it'd get the single kind of attention you are trying to draw to it. I'll come read and post there if you should do so.
Well, again, such can be hashed out here or you can start a thread just for it. Give it a bit of thought and let me know one way or the other?
Gotcha, and yeah, it is harder to define such contexts. I'd just slow down and define as you go. It is an important discussion. For right now, my disagreement with you is whether we are being eisegetically or exegetical.
It could even be that we categorize differently between exegesis and eisegesis. Such is going to make for a very long discussion
Er, a total denial of deity is huge to me.
The councils weren't done in a vacuum nor were the creeds produced from a void. There were good reasons why these happened and 'fighting' was part of the problem.
Yes, but such minutia has paramount effects, like a small stone thrown into a pool. You, yourself, are arguing over the importance of this minutia so I'm getting a mixed signal from you. My larger concern is that I don't believe you can deny the deity of Christ without missing the entire thrust of scripture promise and redemption. As I read my bible, this
is a huge huge issue.
Addressed all this already.
Not true. The Son praying to the Father is exegetically sound for such a doctrinal position.
No. It presumes multiple "persons".
The Word being both with and at the same time being God, is another. These aren't eisegetical, but rather very clear pieces to the greater whole of who God is.
The Logos is presumed to be a pre-existent "person". That's eisegesis.
I disagree. I believe saying a being is both 'with' and 'is' the same being exegetically confounds your issue.
You're equivocating "person" and "being" here.
Scripture uses clear (exegetical) distinction. I'm not caught up with 'substance' or 'essence' as the synonymous but you seem here, to be denying the exegetical idea. I don't believe it is foundable.
I at least think you 'think' it does. Perhaps future discussion will provide the means for us to 'show' our work for comparison.
Let me put it another way: there are only so many things I can make my dog understand. The limitation isn't with me, it is with my dog.
On this note, there is only so much we can understand from God. It isn't that He is limited, it is that we are.
We have been delegate the capacity of logos. Dogs have not.
We'll see then, over time what you are. To me, it looks like you are attempting to distance. If you aren't any of the heresies, you are triune in nearly every sense I am, you are attempting rather to be more exacting. I'm good with that if such be the case.
It comes down to Cosmogony relative to transcendence and eternity. You don't recognize the entire creation of God.
You have more love and patience and your glasses seem more rosey than mine. I have genuine and foundable concerns regarding heretics. I'm not talking about someone struggling with wrong ideas. I'm talking about cults, those who are defiant, and do empathize with members within who are lied to. I don't have a lot of sympathies for TOL unitarian wanna-be's.
Agreed. This does not mean my dog will start talking to me or always get my commands, however.
Dogs don't have the ability for logos.
Er, even 'modal' carries this problem. The problem with any one view is that it can be mistakenly understood only in physical terms, and thus be wrong.
It is important, once again, to repeat the the councils met and wrote creeds to keep aloof from heresies. It is more of a doctrine of 'what you cannot believe and be true to God' than 'what we believe.'
Awkward. You've been trying to tell me it "isn't" salvific. Seems that it is, no?
The DyoHypoTrin doctrine is NOT salvific. I was referring to me grudgingly calling myself a Trinitarian by different formulation.
Such recorrections cannot work because they are entirely too modal in conveyance.
Nope. An ousia is not a hypostasis is not a prosopon.
I'm more concerned with what you are 'describing' than your word choice but I think perhaps conversely, you got caught up in word choice rather than what 'tri-une' is trying to convey. I think the 'description' more important but I'm a global-thinker and such is a preference of those few of us. We are more engrossed in the whole idea than the exact words you are using 'because' we know they don't always convey the right idea. Rather, we keep looking at the big picture (meh, I think the world needs us too).
We'll get on to more.
