Walks like one, speaks like one, then....
I've made it clear in many ways I'm not a Pantheist. I don't represent ANY form or degree of emanation. You've inferred this as you've erroneously inferred the three hypostases as the foundation of your faulty doctrine.
No one claimed you were D'Souza. The company you keep, however...er...see above.
I don't keep company with him. He lives in India. I know him quite casually from the internet. See above, yourself.
So clean up the earlier inchoate streams of consciousness and outline in detail your views, rather than the eristic playing twenty questions and gotcha in this thread.
I'm learned that the more I delineate, the more confused accusations come forth from clueless Trinitarians who don't know much of their own doctrine except pseudo-creedal descriptions. I've found it much more useful to distill my approach to a small profile of assertions and challenges, and it's been at the behest of others who don't like verbose and extended posts.
Persons grow weary with your Whack-A-Mole tactics.
Yes, I sure do. Like yours that I'm both a Pantheist and a Gnostic, among other things.
Lay out your views in detail for examination.
I will. It starts with the apophatic relative to the DyoHypo view. If you can't see the problems in that criticism, you won't have much desire or understanding of the truth anyway.
So far, you've ignored the fact that three hypostases are nowhere represented in scripture and that eternity is unaccounted for in all creation views.
Yes, indeed. Can you? Can you provide your doctrine with scriptural terminology for the alleged multiple "persons"?
The man who continues to whine about being attacked personally who uses dysphemism when referring to the position of his opponents, notwithstanding, of course. Just sayin'.
It's responsive. Do you know the difference between initiative and response? From my first post in this thread, I've responded to other posters' assertions and attitude.
I do genuinely appreciate an extensive vocabulary, so I can't help but like you for that, regardless of anything else.
You'll notice I disarmed myself immediately when Lon backed up to do so. Those exchanges have been quite cordial, and I truly respect his attempts to go beyond the status quo. Commendable and rare.
More moonbeam lingo of the Gnosticist.
Yeah, us Gnostics who affirm the utterly transcendent God Himself embodied His own Logos in flesh by ontological substance. Not one Gnostic in history would accept my position. God's Logos became flesh. Literal and actual flesh.
At what point was your doctrine's Son the literal and actual Logos? It's merely a title. He wasn't.
Come back down to earth and try to construct more luculent posts as we all are near faint in the rarefied atmosphere you are breathing.
That's for sure. Few DyoHypoTrins can even converse at the level necessary to comprehend or defend the doctrine or assess another.
By the way, what exactly do you think the church meant when it referred to the personal subsistences as "persons"?
First, it did NOT mean individuated sentient consciousnesses as multiple minds/wills (souls). And why does it matter? There aren't three hypostases ("subsistences") in scripture. It's a band-aid to compensate for the ignorance of eternity being created, with the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma being ex-/ek- God's own Self-subsistence and Self-existence INTO eternity when/as He created it. A realm of existence doesn't contain or constrain Him to its existence and subsistence.
God isn't multiple hypostases, regardless of what you assign them to be called in any other receptor language. And all "persons" terminology came from hypostases. Period. And the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, NOT another hypostasis with yet a third hypostasis arbitrarily assigned to the HS for purported "equality". Even Calvin did that. I can recite his Institutes if necessary. He coulda really reformed the faith for correction rather than introducing a false dichotomy (though necessary contemporarily because of the Indulgences, etc.).
And there you have it. A likely Triadist insisting I'm an emanationistic Pantheist when I've clearly made exhaustive apophatic AND cataphatic distinctions to the contrary. It's obtuse.
Given your misunderstandings of Gnosticism, it is no wonder you cannot see your own delitescent position clearly.
I'd wager I've studied the Gnostic belief systems far more than most, including you.
What formal theological education do you possess?
Bible College Bachelor's. As a lost DyoHypoTrin. Doesn't mean much, just like many others'. I guess you think the education of men is superior to the Spirit of God. More dialectic. Most Trin professors cluelessly spew multiple hypostases and all the rest.
Are you mainly self-taught as this would explain much of your confusion.
Mainly in the sense of "since salvation", yes. Maybe I shoulda been more indoctrinated by men's dialectic like you and many others. Nah.
You have some of the vocabulary but you appear very confused about how these specialized words have been used historically and should be used.
Please enlighten me according to your indoctrination and dialectic education, then. In what manner do you plan to insert three hypostases into the inspired text to justify your error? They're either there or they aren't. They aren't. Nothing else will suffice, including self-refuting personal pronouns and pros in John 1:1. Been there.
What are some of the mjor works you have read that form the core of your position?
For background to understand O/orthodoxy? Every Ante-Nicene writing extant. Many others. Most of the Systematic Theologies, like Grudem, etc.
The core of my position comes from the Greek text, not sources by men. That doesn't mean I haven't read them. Why overestimate yourself and underestimate others who disagree with the errors of you view and the means you've utilized to be dogmatized into it?
Who would be the one author you would point to, Scripture notwithstanding of course, that speaks closest to your views?
None. I've searched extensively, and nobody has ever realized eternity is created. Most detractors to O/ortho doctrine just migrate to another historical camp or apostatize.
You ignore the full scope of Gnosticism and its claims to secret knowledge possessed by only the select few.
I don't claim secret knowledge at all. I claim that the majority have knowledge of 95% of the truth but haven't had the cojones to challenge the O/orhto view while retaining every sub-tenet in reformulation to represent the truth of a created eternity at the foundation of it all. It's not about "secret" knowledge, it's about "correct" knowledge instead of "incorrect" knowlege.
I'm fine with those who insist on an unformulated "F/S/HS are all God somehow, but I don't really have any idea how. I just believe they all are somehow, and maybe God will help me understand by grace through faith, just like salvation comes. If not, I know F/S/HS are all God." That's not very secret or demaning, now is it?
God is Self-existent and Self-subsistent. God is NOT inherently constrained to eternity for His inate and intrinsic existence and subsistence. And He most certainly is NOT multiple subsistences (substances/"perons") in one substance (essence/"being"). And I'm not the one who made the hypostases into ridiculous and anthropomorphically-literal English "persons" with individuated centers of sentient consciousness. That's Triadism, and it's rampant now.
The hypostatic union is not:
1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
I wasn't referring to the Hypostatic Union, Cyrillian or otherwise. I don't affirm any of those heresies. I intentionally and carefully have avoided them all.
The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ.
Too bad, because there aren't three hypostases in scripture. Period.
The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.
Recognized and agreed. I probably hold the Ante-Nicene Fathers and others in higher esteem than you. The end result was still only 95% of the truth, and omitted the central fixture of creation FOR which ALL opposing historical views were attempting to compensate.
Here is my promise to you. The next time you venture forth with a post on this sacred topic that includes one of your frequent "LOL"s or the mordant equivalent, coupled with your contumelious approach, I will part ways with the discussion.
Fine. I couldn't care less. I endure the vitriolic arrogance condescension of DyoHypoTrin ad hominem on an ad infinitum basis. I won't be stoic in compliance with your false demands of imposed and perceived reverence. Converse or don't. I don't place such inane conditions on you or your peers. I don't acquiesce to such. If sarcasm is appropriate to relieve tension, I'll utilize it. So suit yourself.
Either you are a feckless juvenile in maturity or just trying to appear "kewl".
OR... Dealing with entitled and arrogant purveyors of the dialectic with false self-assurance of nearly two millennia of power-mongering.
You are not texting on a cell phone to your girlfriends.
And you're not addressing your child or pet or slave. Have your faith unto God, and do what you wish. Don't stipulate or condescend to me or anyone else with some over-mature tone of superiority. Withdraw at your own discretion. I'm not compelled by heretics' demands.
(And please note my definition of heresy is according to the Greek text rather than etymology subsequent to Iraeneus' "Against Heresies", which I've read, BTW, among many others.)
In either case such a posture is dishonoring to God for the matter at hand.
That's your opinion as subjective truth you've chosen for yourself. I honor God with the truth of Theology Proper. He knows my heart. Be accountable for yourself, not others.
Either grow up or drop the act, comporting yourself in the manner that the subject deserves (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Philippians 4:8).
AMR
I do comport myself in a befitting manner. It's your peers you need to rebuke en masse. Grow up, yourself. Find the truth instead of error. Come to completeness and maturity in Christ, not according to man's doctrine and cultural social standards.
God is NOT three hypostases. Eternity is NOT UNcreated. Refute if you can.
