ECT Our triune God

[Nang]

Right, but for you the final authority is your creeds.

Not.

You appeal to them rather than the scriptures.

Not.

I've seen you do it several times.

When? Where?

Whenever I have "appealed" to the creeds and confessions of the historical/biblical church of Jesus Christ, it has been in defense of the Holy Scripture, which were synopsized and defended in those very sound declarations of Christianity.

To deny the historical creeds and confessions of the historical Christian church, is to deny biblical Christianity.

 

[meshak]

To deny the historical creeds and confessions of the historical Christian church, is to deny biblical Christianity.

You are following man-made creeds to deny Jesus' authority.

shame.

 

[Nang]

You are following man-made creeds to deny Jesus' authority.

shame.

Nut.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In the Greek text, what is the term for the DyoHypoTrin doctrine's "person/s" relative to F/S/HS?

Only God is a (singular) hypostasis. Only the Incarnate Logos is a (singular) prosopon. And the singular ousia of God has to be extracted from other terms.

One ousia. One hypostasis. One prosopon. That's all.

No multiple hypostases or prosopoa. No multiple "persons".

Next.

 

[Nang]

In the Greek text, what is the term for the DyoHypoTrin doctrine's "person/s" relative to F/S/HS?

Only God is a (singular) hypostasis. Only the Incarnate Logos is a (singular) prosopon. And the singular ousia of God has to be extracted from other terms.

One ousia. One hypostasis. One prosopon. That's all.

No multiple hypostases or prosopoa. No multiple "persons".

Next.

So you say.

Say it somewhere else.

 

[meshak]

Nut.

Yes, you sure are. Your Lord is not Jesus, rather your man-made creeds, and you condemn other Christians who are serving Jesus as their Lord.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you say.

So says SCRIPTURE. I just agree.

Say it somewhere else.

No. I'll proclaim the truth of scripture, unlike you.:wave:

 

[Lon]

No need to reply to this post. There is rather, an overall sentiment of 'coming to the point' in a timely fashion by both coming to the point of what you dismiss in clarity, and coming to the point of posting a treatise for inspection of your position. If not, you are more of a global thinker than I am. It has been a week in this thread and over a week since you've been on TOL.

On the contrary... I've distilled it all down to the most basic elements of challenge for reform (actually reconstruction).

'On the contrary" what? :idunno:

There aren't three hypostases in scripture for God. The three "persons" aren't therein represented. That's because there aren't three "same-somethings" that are F/S/HS.

Er, then in what aspect are you tri-une? It looks modal. The others are right, that you haven't spelled out your position. As I said, I have patience but if the answers aren't coming by All Hallowed's or sooner...

You want to keep an UNcreated and Divine eternity that contains and constrains God.

God, rather, constrains Himself in expressing Himself to us. I'm not even sure, post 1John 3:2, we are going to fully know Him, but only to the degree that 'we' are fully known or knowable.

But God is Self-existent and Self-subsistent, and He created ALL, including eternity. (I suppose you'd want an exegesis, but won't provide one for your position.
I can do that, BTW. I just think it inequitable to have to counter unsupported presumption and declaration with exegesis.)

Oh, no. Sure I can and will tell you: For me, "eternal" is a timeless (without duration) consideration. "Eternity" conversely, is time without end. God interacts with us and our conception of time, but time is first, a property of physicality (we'd have no sense of it without successions perceived through our 5 physical senses), and second, a property of durations. God is relational to but not hindered or ruled (not constrained in any manner and cannot be) by the succession of time, endless or otherwise.

Just because YOU confuse what I've said in summary to be some mix of Modal, Triune, and Arian thought; that doesn't mean it IS. Now your understanding has become the standard for MY position. That's called caricaturing. I face it all the time. It's cognitive dissonance.
If we had a chance to sit down face to face and iron out the misunderstandings and caricature, you'd probably have an epiphany. But you nebulously contending I present some caricature of blended views is absurd.

Well, no, it is rather that I'm seeing pieces of your theology. You really haven't spelled this out yet. As such, I disagree that me saying this or that portion looks modal, or triune, or arian, is inappropriate. It is simply dialogue assessment. Cognitive dissonance, imho, requires, er congition. Granted it doesn't require cognition of your stance, but until such a time, you'd begrudge me assessment along the way?

I'm not the one who's trampled scripture. Three hypostases tramples scripture. An immanent and impotent God tramples scripture. That means DyoHypoTrins have trampled scripture.

Well, as congenial as I've been, I have admitted if you were about reforming or restating a truth, I'm not too bothered, but by your own admission, you are trying to replace the whole of triune thinking and are opposed to it. As such, I can only be congenial to such a point as we actually start to argue the truth of scriptures. For me, I think the triune view, just vague enough, to comfortably seat a lot of vague or inexacting people: that's you to date, at the moment. It does not, however, leave room if your views are all over the place and adopting a little from each or several heresies, nor as your stated purpose, to reject it and entirely replace it. I suppose you become a different kind of heretic. As I said, you seem to be modal up until the time of Christ, and seemingly then are splitting off into two or three separations. That's still a heresy. I'm not sure how salvific an issue it is, when you claim His deity, but I've not been too overtly harsh with modalists in the past. They, rather, are overtly harsh so separate and distance themselves. There is something weird about missing huge chunks of scriptures, however, such also causes distancing.

It's a hard thing to face and admit. That's the problem, not me or anything I present. I could be ANYTHING and my criticisms and challenges are valid.

Well, I've got to give you strikes for delivery. "Hi all, I'm here to prove you all: unitarians, arians, modalist, and trinitarians are all dead wrong!" isn't the most enduring opening line.

Is this how you'd respond to an Atheist? A Deist? Would you just tell them it's their problem if they referred to your three hypostases and your UNcreated and Divine eternity?

Um, I might.

I think most would. That's how ideology and dogmatization and indoctrination work.

Well, again Ecclesiastes 1:9, remember?

You just won't give up your concept. God is NOT three in the sense that you're convinced of by dogma.

Let's stop for a quick view, then. In what sense do you believe I see 'three' and in what most important sense do you not? If it is a 'person' such as 3 physical persons, then I agree. I've explained that (repeatedly). You have not.

I'm not Arian in the least. I'm not Modalist in the least. I'm not Triune in the sense that you are.

Er, if you do not believe the Son existed with the Father before creation, or are advocating a created something 'else' (before or after), then you are barking up one said of the modal tree and down the polytheism other side.
You. You have to show you are not. You have to spell that portion out.

To say so is inane. Just because you can't face the error (yes, error; not just mislabeled semantics) of your doctrine, then I can't help you.

Correct, you'd need to actually get started showing my incorrect beliefs, before I could 'see' I'm in any kind of 'error.' As I said, I'm congenial at this point because all I've seen from you are mislabelled semantics or corrections of them only. You've really proffered nothing at this point to cause concern or thought otherwise. Such 'seems' to be you getting worked up about semantics, at the moment because there is nothing else really in this thread but a bit of guesswork and waiting. Such, can quickly become wasted space.

You don't really seem to want to see it; but that's not unusual, especially online.

After a week of discussion? Probably not at this point. I had no idea it was going to go on this long with not a lot said. Do you realize it has been a week? I 'think' I can do a lot more in a week than you can, just saying.

I don't know what to tell you if you can't see there aren't three of ANY "same somethings" as "persons" in the text.

After a week? Start with three of 'anything' you believe in and work from there. After a week, to me, it looks a bit modal before Christ and perhaps tri- afterwards. Such still puts you in modalism but you've yet to spell out your position. Maybe I'll get the book in a year or two and save some time now and wait until then. :idunno:

 

[Krsto]

When? Where?

This was your latest of several:

Originally Posted by Nang:

All I know, is that he laughs and sneers at the historical church creeds and confessions, faithfully worked out according to Holy Scripture by the early church fathers, in order to protect God's little flock of Christians from false prophets and ravenous wolves!

Whenever I have "appealed" to the creeds and confessions of the historical/biblical church of Jesus Christ, it has been in defense of the Holy Scripture, which were synopsized and defended in those very sound declarations of Christianity.

To deny the historical creeds and confessions of the historical Christian church, is to deny biblical Christianity.

Nearly ALL of the Catholic councils were convened to prevent the effects of false prophets and ravenous wolves, and to keep people like yourself from error. You have at some point decided to "take matters into your own hands", "rebelled" against their supposed authority, and dared to disagree with many of those councils which they deem as sound and biblical.

To say you agree with certain councils as reflecting biblical theology is one thing, and certainly your prerogative, but that is YOUR analysis of the work of those councils. God does not expect any of us to go by YOUR analysis. We must all do our own (if we care enough and have the ability).

Someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura should not bring up the council's interpretation against anyone else's (like PPS) when the someone else believes the council's opinion is not biblical. In order to be consistent with SS you should simply go to the scriptures and explain why they refute that person's interpretation.

Luther "invented" Sola Scriptura to avoid a church's or a council's wrong theology from being considered a litmus test for orthodoxy, even when said church had every reason to make the decree to battle heresy. Since the council's are not infallible they are subject to scrutiny by you, me, and everyone else, according to the only thing us Protestants do consider to be infallible, Jesus, and the authors of the scriptures (while writing the scriptures).

Since we agree everyone after the apostles is fallible we should agree that we all need to make sure they got it right and not disparage them who determine they got it wrong.

Just go to scripture for your defense! That's what SS was designed to get you to do.

 

[Nang]

Nearly ALL of the Catholic councils were convened to prevent the effects of false prophets and ravenous wolves, and to keep people like yourself from error.

You think?

I do not hold to the "Catholic councils."

I am a Reformed Protestant that holds to the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, and MOST importantly the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura should not bring up the council's interpretation against anyone else's (like PPS) when the someone else believes the council's opinion is not biblical.

The RCC councils deny Sola Scriptura, so do you know what you are talking about? And I highly doubt pps is offering apologetics in defence of the Catholic councils. If he says they are not biblical, I agree with him on that point . . . but the RCC councils have not been referenced in this thread, as far as I am aware.

Luther "invented" Sola Scriptura

No, he did not and that is just a silly thing to post . . .

Since the council's are not infallible they are subject to scrutiny by you, me, and everyone else,

Are you still referring to Catholic councils?

according to the only thing us Protestants do consider to be infallible, Jesus, and the authors of the scriptures (while writing the scriptures).

Duh . . . yes. No argument. So?

Just go to scripture for your defense! That's what SS was designed to get you to do.

Yep. What I do. And what the historical Protestant church fathers always practiced . . . and upon the basis of Sola Scriptura provided the Protestant confessions faith accordingly, in order to protect the church from error, heresies, and unscriptural false teachers.

IOW's, belief in Sola Scriptura does not preclude the spiritual benefits of adhering to the Creedal guidelines, which were founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura, to begin with.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No need to reply to this post. There is rather, an overall sentiment of 'coming to the point' in a timely fashion by both coming to the point of what you dismiss in clarity, and coming to the point of posting a treatise for inspection of your position. If not, you are more of a global thinker than I am. It has been a week in this thread and over a week since you've been on TOL.

'On the contrary" what? :idunno:

Er, then in what aspect are you tri-une? It looks modal. The others are right, that you haven't spelled out your position. As I said, I have patience but if the answers aren't coming by All Hallowed's or sooner...
God, rather, constrains Himself in expressing Himself to us. I'm not even sure, post 1John 3:2, we are going to fully know Him, but only to the degree that 'we' are fully known or knowable.

Oh, no. Sure I can and will tell you: For me, "eternal" is a timeless (without duration) consideration. "Eternity" conversely, is time without end. God interacts with us and our conception of time, but time is first, a property of physicality (we'd have no sense of it without successions perceived through our 5 physical senses), and second, a property of durations. God is relational to but not hindered or ruled (not constrained in any manner and cannot be) by the succession of time, endless or otherwise.


Well, no, it is rather that I'm seeing pieces of your theology. You really haven't spelled this out yet. As such, I disagree that me saying this or that portion looks modal, or triune, or arian, is inappropriate. It is simply dialogue assessment. Cognitive dissonance, imho, requires, er congition. Granted it doesn't require cognition of your stance, but until such a time, you'd begrudge me assessment along the way?

Well, as congenial as I've been, I have admitted if you were about reforming or restating a truth, I'm not too bothered, but by your own admission, you are trying to replace the whole of triune thinking and are opposed to it. As such, I can only be congenial to such a point as we actually start to argue the truth of scriptures. For me, I think the triune view, just vague enough, to comfortably seat a lot of vague or inexacting people: that's you to date, at the moment. It does not, however, leave room if your views are all over the place and adopting a little from each or several heresies, nor as your stated purpose, to reject it and entirely replace it. I suppose you become a different kind of heretic. As I said, you seem to be modal up until the time of Christ, and seemingly then are splitting off into two or three separations. That's still a heresy. I'm not sure how salvific an issue it is, when you claim His deity, but I've not been too overtly harsh with modalists in the past. They, rather, are overtly harsh so separate and distance themselves. There is something weird about missing huge chunks of scriptures, however, such also causes distancing.

Well, I've got to give you strikes for delivery. "Hi all, I'm here to prove you all: unitarians, arians, modalist, and trinitarians are all dead wrong!" isn't the most enduring opening line.


Um, I might.


Well, again Ecclesiastes 1:9, remember?

Let's stop for a quick view, then. In what sense do you believe I see 'three' and in what most important sense do you not? If it is a 'person' such as 3 physical persons, then I agree. I've explained that (repeatedly). You have not.

Er, if you do not believe the Son existed with the Father before creation, or are advocating a created something 'else' (before or after), then you are barking up one said of the modal tree and down the polytheism other side.
You. You have to show you are not. You have to spell that portion out.


Correct, you'd need to actually get started showing my incorrect beliefs, before I could 'see' I'm in any kind of 'error.' As I said, I'm congenial at this point because all I've seen from you are mislabelled semantics or corrections of them only. You've really proffered nothing at this point to cause concern or thought otherwise. Such 'seems' to be you getting worked up about semantics, at the moment because there is nothing else really in this thread but a bit of guesswork and waiting. Such, can quickly become wasted space.


After a week of discussion? Probably not at this point. I had no idea it was going to go on this long with not a lot said. Do you realize it has been a week? I 'think' I can do a lot more in a week than you can, just saying.

After a week? Start with three of 'anything' you believe in and work from there. After a week, to me, it looks a bit modal before Christ and perhaps tri- afterwards. Such still puts you in modalism but you've yet to spell out your position. Maybe I'll get the book in a year or two and save some time now and wait until then. :idunno:

I've posted it quite simply, both apophatically and cataphatically without a treatise. And I've been congenial as well. It's not like I'm privileged to have your congeniality. It's the fallacious three hypostases doctrine that demands tolerance of its error, not mine.

Summarily, and as my final cordial attempt at a summary...

God and His Logos, and His Pneuma (NOT multiple "persons" as individuated hypostases) is a Self-existent and Self-subsistent utterly transcendent ousia (essence) as Spirit.

God created BOTH realms of existence. He created eternity of heaven (which is everlasting), and He created the cosmos (which is temporal). He INhabiteth eternity when/as He created it.

The Logos and Pneuma are His Word and His Breath. He ex- (out from) -pressed and ex- (out from) -haled His Logos and His Pneuma to dwell in eternity, comprising the qualitatively two-fold singular hypostasis (substance) of His ousia (essence).

The Pneuma is God's omnipresence, concurrent with His Logos as His finite localized "personal" presence. This is NOT modal, since His ousia is conjoined in heavenly immanence with His hypostasis via the procession.

In the eternity of heaven (which had an inception at its creation and is everlasting), God is an ousia and a two-fold hypostasis (NOT three hypostases). In due course of time, the Logos was embodied in flesh as the prosopon of Jesus Christ.

A prosopon is a person/face/presence. The personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another. The prosopon of the hypostasis of the ousia of God; distinct from the Father as the Son.

Eternal, uncreated, non-modal, concurrent, con-essential and con-substantial ontological Deity by essence/substance/subsistence.

There aren't three eternal "persons" in transcendence. YOUR transcendence is heavenly immanence. The created eternity is purported to be transcendence. It's merely transcendent to the temporal cosmos, but is still created.

The Son was the literal Logos of God. The DyoHypoTrin doctrine doesn't actually even have a Son that was the Logos. It is merely a title.

I'm not concerned about you or anyone else comprehending anything but your own mandated conceptual understanding of multiple eternal "persons". You don't comprehend that there aren't multiple hypostases, so there aren't multiple "persons". I can't substitute another triplicate semantic for something that isn't triplicate.

Your Son was never the Logos. The Unitarians are much closer, but consider the Logos to be only a mere fiat of thought as the oracles or plan of God and the Son is not ontologically Divine. That's fallacious, just as the Arians insisting the procession of the Logos into created eternity was a creative act, and the Modalists insisting there was a non-simultaneous sequentiality of God being only one of the F/S/HS at once in succession.

Bottom line... I could present the extended contents of my upcoming published work, but it won't do any good if you can't overcome cognitive dissonance that God's was NOT three "persons", and that eternity is created and everlasting.

You can keep your three hypostases and your UNcreated and Divine eternity. It's of no consequence to me. But don't take issue with others you consider to be in error about Theology Proper when you don't and can't even have scriptural semantics for the non-existent three "persons".

That's what prompted me to respond in the first place, and my criticisms are as valid now as they were then and ever will be. God isn't three hypostases, and there isn't any other term to superimposed multiple "persons" into scripture. You're no closer to truth than those you and others have historically decried as heretics, no matter how close you might be.

God alone is eternal and UNcreated and Divine. God is NOT three hypostases. Eternity is created. It's that simple. A book to provide the truth in intricate exegetical detail beyond that will likely do you no good.

No need to reply. Go your way in peace and in error.:wave:

 

[Lon]

Rebuttal, closing comments:

Thanks for discussion to this point and helping to get to the point on much of this. As such, I'd encourage you too to wrap up as you like, correct where needed, etc.

I've posted it quite simply, both apophatically and cataphatically without a treatise.

Come on now! You've gotten a weeks worth of 'what in the world is he saying' to know better than that!

Imho, you've been neither succinct or blunt. By the looks of others, I don't think you can deal yourself that hand, outright, :nono:

And I've been congenial as well. It's not like I'm privileged to have your congeniality. It's the fallacious three hypostases doctrine that demands tolerance of its error, not mine.

Er, don't mistake 'abrupt' for noncongenial. You threw the gauntlet and I think I've been a patient listener, even knowing the gauntlet was down. That doesn't mean I can't steer this thread another direction as the time has come to move along. I don't mind, as I said, a bit of usage and mileage, but again, for the long haul (which I didn't quite anticipate), it might be a good idea to start a thread all your own.

Summarily, and as my final cordial attempt at a summary...

Right, end of discussion, or end of cordiality. Understood. I think...

God and His Logos, and His Pneuma (NOT multiple "persons" as individuated hypostases) is a Self-existent and Self-subsistent utterly transcendent ousia (essence) as Spirit.

More simply: "God is not triune, other than in His interaction with creation, specifically the cross?" (you should be correcting 'guesses' as they come because you are not as forthcoming or clear as you imagine) Whether you see it or not, such has both modal and arian/unitarian drops on either side. The Triune view is purposeful enough in expression, that it avoids it. Ask any modalist or unitarian or polytheist: there is no mistaking that a trinitarian is neither. They all fight with us, and for good reason. Modalists and unitarians who don't know, call us polytheist and polytheists call us confused modalists. You can't both be right :nono: and actually neither really realizes they are half correct but that isn't nearly correct enough, just like it isn't correct in understanding the scriptures.

God created BOTH realms of existence. He created eternity of heaven (which is everlasting), and He created the cosmos (which is temporal). He INhabiteth eternity when/as He created it.

We agree, but I insist, for me, in the definition, it be understood that God is relational rather, to His creation(s). He 'dwells' in limited form/representation. Why? Because God is not physical and we think of both heaven and earth and the stars as a 'place' and in physical terms. We are very handicapped in our thinking and conception of a spiritual realm (existence).

The Logos and Pneuma are His Word and His Breath. He ex- (out from) -pressed and ex- (out from) -haled His Logos and His Pneuma to dwell in eternity, comprising the qualitatively two-fold singular hypostasis (substance) of His ousia (essence).

I had not realized how straightforward you've been because you claim to have a triune view, however, this is decidedly not trinitarian and is heresy.
John 1:1 - read it again - 'was with God and was God" Your mistake and a big one. Read these 6 words in relation to one another. There are 6 distinct truths expressed that are true and cannot be undone by any doctrine. Your belief undoes the clarity of much of John concerning the deity of Christ. Your's isn't eisegesis, it isn't even reconciling or understanding this verse at all.

The Pneuma is God's omnipresence, concurrent with His Logos as His finite localized "personal" presence. This is NOT modal, since His ousia is conjoined in heavenly immanence with His hypostasis via the procession.

It is very much stuck in 3 dimensions (physical) thinking. God is who He claims to be in scripture. You cannot force the text when it calls the Spirit Him in the third person from Jesus and the Father. What bible are you reading again? I'm pretty sure it isn't mine, but thank you painting a clear picture for me to address, as asked. I actually think saying such, this simply would have saved us both a lot of time. Perhaps you have a need for discussion and interaction and I'm good with that and don't see the time as lost, but I have to reiterate clearly, and against your view, that anytime another idea is proffered, it must align with all scripture.

In the eternity of heaven (which had an inception at its creation and is everlasting), God is an ousia and a two-fold hypostasis (NOT three hypostases). In due course of time, the Logos was embodied in flesh as the prosopon of Jesus Christ.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Word shall never pass away?"
"New heaven and a new earth?"

A prosopon is a person/face/presence. The personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another. The prosopon of the hypostasis of the ousia of God; distinct from the Father as the Son.
Eternal, uncreated, non-modal, concurrent, con-essential and con-substantial ontological Deity by essence/substance/subsistence.

This is a good point to express that you don't always dilineate which you are expounding, your own view or one you reject. I have tried to be careful and differentiate when you have not, but this one isn't as easy or you aren't, again, being careful enough when expressing yourself because you 'blend ideas' between the spiritual and physical and do so ▲here▲
This is where you lose people.

There aren't three eternal "persons" in transcendence. YOUR transcendence is heavenly immanence. The created eternity is purported to be transcendence.

Again, depending what you mean by persons. Think of it this way: Rather than being static, that is thinking that 'persons' are outside of God, such would have to be eternally within Him? Why? 1) Because He is the totality of everything 2) Because He is omniscient, no new thought, no new change. 3) Because (and most specifically): He tells us of Himself before and after creation and the cross and we don't tell Him! That is, scripture, despite what must make sense or not to you, is what you'd better be busting your can over and Jesus says "The glory I had with you before creation." For me, that's a double-whammy because there is no time before creation. There is no 'eternity' in any durative sense.

Therefore, whatever 'distinction' (persons, beings, individuation, or other better term) God says was there before creation and the cross, was there before creation and the cross. I am not so much against what you say, but what you negate here. That is, I think you have a good observation, I think and an incomplete observation that the triune view embraces and you are wrong to reject. Thanks again for clarity here. I know pretty much what you believe and can address it in a straight forward manner and in a way, I hope, that others can follow along and see where we are both coming from.

It's (heaven)merely transcendent to the temporal cosmos, but is still created.

Yup. :up:

The Son was the literal Logos of God.

For me? :nono: When I write "Logos" <--that word is not Jesus right here on this page. I'm not sure how persnickety your 'literal' is, but I'm saying 'no' at this point in time:
I suppose it'd be like a transubstantiation discussion on "This (bread) is my (literal) body." (Cannibalism never entered my mind when reading that scripture). The easy answer for transubstantiation is that it is 'literal' but not in a 'physical' sense. The Catholics do not like that idea because 'spiritual' for some reason doesn't mean 'literal' to them.
In a literal and spiritual sense, John 1:18 spells out logos clearly in a Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15 manner:

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

As being both. I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you have God, somehow making Jesus as God (as well as man), at conception.
John 1:1 says that didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

The DyoHypoTrin doctrine doesn't actually even have a Son that was the Logos. It is merely a title.

You mean because we say He was that before creation? Makes sense. It is an interesting idea. I think it still bouncing between heresies, but agree that it isn' quite modal, and not really unitarian. You actually sound like a philosophical open theist because you are rejecting immutability here, with this statement (they reject omni's and these others of God's character).
For me, this change is more like the face of a clock. "Technically" the face changes but immutability of a clock is that it is the way it is going to be forever. They say 'but its face changes thus is not the way it is going to be forever." We say, yes, but it is consistent unchanging for the moments it address and will never change for them: 6:32:58 will always see the same face. I understand now, that you read Hebrews 13:8 as durative, but the interchangeablity in which God presents Himself in scripture leave us knowing God intended it: Isaiah 9:6 Colossians 1:15-19 with Genesis 1

I'm not concerned about you or anyone else comprehending anything but your own mandated conceptual understanding of multiple eternal "persons". You don't comprehend that there aren't multiple hypostases, so there aren't multiple "persons". I can't substitute another triplicate semantic for something that isn't triplicate.

No, I didn't think you did. You said as much when you came here.

Your Son was never the Logos.

Rather, He didn't 'become' so, as if some even can change the character or nature of God? :nono:

The Unitarians are much closer, but consider the Logos to be only a mere fiat of thought as the oracles or plan of God and the Son is not ontologically Divine.

If you say so. I don't see it as much closer at all.

That's fallacious, just as the Arians insisting the procession of the Logos into created eternity was a creative act, and the Modalists insisting there was a non-simultaneous sequentiality of God being only one of the F/S/HS at once in succession.

I don't believe so.

Bottom line... I could present the extended contents of my upcoming published work, but it won't do any good if you can't overcome cognitive dissonance that God's was NOT three "persons", and that eternity is created and everlasting.

Er, I said it first, remember? As to persons, I prefer three 'distinctions' but such isn't sufficient for distancing from modalists because we (trinitarians) need to ensure we mean both. Why? Because this what scriptures say. Again, John 1:1 says both. This is why we are not triad (polytheist) or modal. If you think so, you are only paying attention to half a picture. If you only see platypus' beak, you are going to say I believe in a duck. Such is incorrect and understand me incorrectly. I am both tri-and -une and can only affirm it so many times.

You can keep your three hypostases and your UNcreated and Divine eternity.

First, I thought I made a clear distinction between eternal and everlasting. Eternal is the nondurative, (or duratively unconstrained) quality of God while everlasting deals with the aspects of His creation in which He interacts with us but is not bound to.
As far as 'three' it is 'both.' I can only say that, again, so many times. You are way more modal than you think you are, if you do not (and have not shown yourself to) understand this clearly. Again, as a reminder, God tells you He is both quite clearly in John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6. There are both sentiments clearly given in scripture and again, our main concern has to do with a person denying either one or both of 'both' as God has given such to us.

It's of no consequence to me. But don't take issue with others you consider to be in error about Theology Proper when you don't and can't even have scriptural semantics for the non-existent three "persons".

Ask in a clearer and more straightforward manner and in keeping with scriptures. If you are asking me for the 'triune' verse, keep looking and asking. There are, however, clear indications that are exegetical. John 1:1 tells you plainly 'both,' for instance.

God alone is eternal and UNcreated and Divine.

Yup. Do you mean 'Father' here synonymously? Such is incorrect.

God is NOT three hypostases.

Yes He is, but not 'just' three distinctions.

Eternity is created.

I believe I said so too, on multiple occasions.

A book to provide the truth in intricate exegetical detail beyond that will likely do you no good.

Not if you don't learn to be more clear.

No need to reply. Go your way in peace and in error.:wave:

Really? Disagreement is where you drew the line? Frankly, I knew a week ago you disagreed with us and were not interested in reformation. Maybe you get too many write-offs but this wasn't one other than getting to the gist of the conversation and posting my position as well. Such can move the thread along. I do use this material, as I said for reference in other discussions and it is my hope such is used by others.

At any rate...

:wave:

 

[Krsto]

You think?

I do not hold to the "Catholic councils."

Yes, I know, that was one of my points. Point being, they hold all their councils to be inerrant (after weeding out the ones they disagree with, like the Robber Council) and that is why they do not "permit" those who want to be true to them and true to God to differ with those councils. They hold equal weight with the scriptures. THAT'S why when someone disagrees with them they hold the creed up and say, "See here, our creed says you're a heretic." You do the same thing, even when someone is trying to prove to you that the creed itself is not scriptural. If they were just coming up with novel theories as an intellectual exercise with no real commitment to discerning the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints" then that's one thing but we are talking about people who see doctrinal error in the creeds. Appealing to the creed then only makes sense if you are Catholic, one who believes the creeds are inerrant. But you don't, right?

I am a Reformed Protestant that holds to the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, and MOST importantly the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Well I'd call the Athanasian & Chalcedonian creeds Catholic since I believe they have taken the church away from the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ and they think they are inerrant but you must see them as pre-Catholic? No matter, the real issue is are they inerrant or errant? If not inerrant, then there is at least a possibility they got things wrong, no? That is what the word means, after all.

Funny I asked a Presbyterian pastor if it were possible those councils were wrong and he actually had to think about it and couldn't come up with an answer. That tells me he never has considered that they could be fallible. Strange thing coming from a Protestant bible teacher, especially one who knew the history of the Council of Nicea better than I did.

The RCC councils deny Sola Scriptura, so do you know what you are talking about? And I highly doubt pps is offering apologetics in defence of the Catholic councils. If he says they are not biblical, I agree with him on that point . . . but the RCC councils have not been referenced in this thread, as far as I am aware.

Yes, of course, that's my point. They deny Sola Scriptura, which is why they hold up the councils as authoritative as scripture, yet you affirm SS, and and hold up the historic creeds as authoritative as scripture, else you wouldn't condemn someone who holds a different view than those creeds.

No, he did not and that is just a silly thing to post . . .

Luther said:

The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.

Are you still referring to Catholic councils?

EVERY council (except Acts 15). You don't agree? Which ones are infallible and not subject to scrutiny by you and me?

Duh . . . yes. No argument. So?

Only that which is infallible has equal authority with the scriptures. Don't find fault with those who find fault with fallible councils and their creeds bases solely on the fact they find fault with them.

Yep. What I do. And what the historical Protestant church fathers always practiced . . . and upon the basis of Sola Scriptura provided the Protestant confessions faith accordingly, in order to protect the church from error, heresies, and unscriptural false teachers.

Yes, you do, at times, when you are in your element. And yes, the confessions of faith are at times to protect the church from error, heresies, and unscriptural false teachers, but just keep in mind that they are not infallible or have the same authority as scripture. You have not been willing to admit that they can be wrong because you do not allow anyone to disagree with them, just as the Catholics.

IOW's, belief in Sola Scriptura does not preclude the spiritual benefits of adhering to the Creedal guidelines, which were founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura, to begin with.

It precludes adhering to them to the point you don't allow yourself or anyone else find fault with them according to sound hermeneutics and scriptural integrity. If you find peace and safety in those creeds that's one thing, but don't expect others to be so beholden to them when they conclude they are contrary to the scriptures. You should be listening to them more than they should be listening to you. You don't have to accept their conclusions, but you don't have to condemn them either.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Rebuttal, closing comments:

Thanks for discussion to this point and helping to get to the point on much of this. As such, I'd encourage you too to wrap up as you like, correct where needed, etc.

Okay.

Come on now! You've gotten a weeks worth of 'what in the world is he saying' to know better than that!

Yes, and I know why. There is no amount of clarity that can overcome hammered and engrained conceptual ideology in a short period of time with an online format.

Imho, you've been neither succinct or blunt. By the looks of others, I don't think you can deal yourself that hand, outright, :nono:

Sure I have. I've just been succinct and blunt about things that others already have an overarching concept for that they can't get out from under. You, for instance, think tri- doesn't just mean simply "three"; you (passively and unconsciously OR actively and consciously) presume because of your indoctrination that tri- must mean "three persons, but with a possible different semantic that still means persons". LOL.

Er, don't mistake 'abrupt' for noncongenial.

I did. It seemed to be your expression and intent.

You threw the gauntlet and I think I've been a patient listener, even knowing the gauntlet was down. That doesn't mean I can't steer this thread another direction as the time has come to move along.

Agreed.:salute:

I don't mind, as I said, a bit of usage and mileage, but again, for the long haul (which I didn't quite anticipate), it might be a good idea to start a thread all your own.

I've grown weary of that, especially with the effectiveness of live teaching in which the very obvious annointing of my calling is apparent and endorsed in hearts with confident assurance I'm a Didaskalos. Online, everybody's a "master" (teacher/Didaskalos) in their own eyes and function.

When I'm live, nobody misunderstands all the things you've misunderstood and caricatured. I can frame and build a foundation in two hours of teaching that makes it all quite clear. That takes months online in a written format as a blog. In an interactive forum, it's tedious and laced with constant caricatures from others, like yours still are.

Right, end of discussion, or end of cordiality. Understood. I think...

It was responsive to perveived abruptness, etc. It wasn't my initiative of anything.

More simply: "God is not triune, other than in His interaction with creation, specifically the cross?"

NO. Let me get this back to basics for a sec.

Tri = three. Tri does NOT inherently mean "three persons, even if there can be another semantic that says persons without directly saying persons. Tri means THREE. How hard is that? It's your mandated conceptual caricature that is still demanding merely a replacement semantic for "persons" in the triplicate. God isn't a triplicate of ANY semantic in that regard.

Une/Unity/Inity = unity; in union. It does NOT inherently mean "a union of three persons, even if there can be another semantic that says persons without directly saying persons. Une means in union. How hard is that? It's still your mandated conceptual caricature that is demanding the unity to adamantly be that of a prescribed triplicate semantic in the stead of "persons".

ALL "person/s" semantics derive from hypostasis/es. If I'm a MONOhypostatic TRInitarian, it should be immediately obvious that I'm not presenting a dyohypostatic view that just substitutes one triplicate semantic for another. It means I'm presenting ONE substance (erroneously determined to be "persons" because the prosopon that reveals it outwardly determines that the hypostasis is adjectivally "personAL" by description, NOT DEFINITION) with some OTHER threeness for the tri-.

I'm a MONOhypostatic TRInitarian. Dyo- means more than one. My simple self-affiliation label clearly states I will be more in line with other MONOhypostatic views than with a DYOhypostatic view. Heck, I don't even really WANT to be affilated as a Trinitarian, but it is by the leadership of the Spirit that I have acquiesced to the term.

I prefer Merismos Monotheist, Monotarian, or Monohypostatic Tripartitarian. But Tripartite can be perceived to intimate God being somehow comprised of constituent parts, and that's not what it would mean in the least.

So if the thronging horde of functional Triadists can call themselve Trinitarians. I certainly can. I'm much more forthright than those deceived into thinking they're actual Trinitarians because they still utilize the term "persons".

(you should be correcting 'guesses' as they come because you are not as forthcoming or clear as you imagine)

As you note later in this post, I'm quite forthcoming. It's your presumed triplicate caricature of DyoHypo that has your receptors in a tizzy.

Whether you see it or not, such has both modal and arian/unitarian drops on either side.

Simplistically again... Modal = modes. Most generally they are sequential, not simultaneous (Dynamic Modalism is slightly different). God, His Logos, and His Pneuma are concurrent, not modal. The ousia and the (singular two-fold) hypostasis are simultaneous in EVERY sense and regard. There is NO manifestation in any sequence or modality whatsoever. So again, you're applying your cognitive conceptual mandate to caricature even your demands and assessments of other views. Modal must be... modal. If such is simultaneous and concurrent, then it's NOT modal.

The same is true for createdness. Just because I represent procession correctly as an individuated instantiation from transcendence into created eternity, that doesn't mean it's a creative act. It's not. Procession is NOT inception. And the same is true of conception. Conception of the Logos as the Son is NOT inception.

Neither PROcession NOR CONception are INception. Neither is a creative act. I'm neither Arian nor Unitarian. There isn't even a hint of either in what I say. It's your conceptualized and tainted receptors that filters it according to your own cognitive preterminations. You don't have a "grid" for this. You've never approached this with the ministry of reconciliation for ALL views unto the central truth.

You're still adamantly looking for a triplicate envelope and semantics to contain a non-triplicate truth that isn't compatible in that regard. It's NOT just a semantics shift for triplication of a hypostasis with another English term. It's a divestiture of the entire extra-biblical concept of multiple hypostases while reconciling it to the truth of a created eternity. But I'm still a Trinitarian; more so than you Triadists, actually.

God is NOT three hypostases according to scripture. So another triplicate semantic and concept isn't the truth, either. You're just carrying all your DyoHypo baggage over while presuming you're open to better expression. The only expression you need to understand is that hypostasis does NOT mean "person" in any manner you have long presumed. Hypostasis is substance or subsistence when contrasted to ousia as essence or substance.

There's the utterly transcendent Self-existent "essentiality" of God as Spirit. Then there's the heavenly-immanent "substantiatlity" of that "essentiality" that proceeded forth/proceedeth into eternity when/as God created it. That's the qualitatively two-fold hypostasis of the Logos and the Pneuma. They're NOT "persons". A hypostasis is NOT a "person". They're NOT multiple hypostases. They're a two-fold of the SAME EXACT substance (hypostasis). Con-substantial. And being the substance OF the essence, they're obviously also consubstantial with the ousia.

When God created BOTH the realm of eternity and the realm of the cosmos, He "substantiated" His "essence" in heaven and then embodied that substance in flesh within the cosmos; all distinct from Himself; His Self; His Soul; the Essence of His Being; His Self-existent "Ness". This hypostasis is the foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality of ALL existence and subsistence. ALL. There is NO existence apart from His hypostasis. His substance undergirds ALL; and it's by the content of the Logos, which is the Rhema. ALL things are upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis.

(But such damage has been done by so many to aidios and aionios, the true understanding has become nebulous and subjective to formulated views with the changeable etymologies. Aidios means without beginning or end, and is ONLY ascribed to the dunamis and Theiotes of God (and in one other place that bears delineation). This inherently includes His Theotes and all that proceeded forth/proceedeth from Him. Aionios means "belonging to the aion/s." Age/s. As an adjective, it can (and most often does) mean without end. It is subordinate and reflects whatever is being expressed. Of God, it still means without beginning, because aidios is the more overarching term. It simply means God is both utterly transcendent to BOTH created realms AND inherently present and durative within them to the extent of the age/s. In the temporal, God is obviously only present until its end. But in the everlasting eternity, God is without end just as the life He gives us is without end. The Open Theists have done near-irreparable etymological damage to these terms, as have others.)

For something/someone to be observed, there must be both an observer and "observability". God in His essence is unobservable, and there were no observers or any framework of ANY realm of existence to observe Him. So... God created ALL the parameters and conceptual realizability via BOTH realms of existence, both of eternity and of the temporal. There is no modality in Him doing this, either. Any sequence is NOT ontological relative to Him, but is a designed and necessary part of unfolding the revelation of Himself to others.

The ontology of the realms is distinct in whatever manner, but God's ontology is immutable. This includes His Logos and His Pneuma, which are eternal/UNcreated and unaffected by their "environment" or "location". God, His Logos, and His Pneuma supercede the created by virtue of them being UNcreated. Creation cannot change the inherent ontology of the UNcreated. That's why the Logos and the Son can be coterminous without being in the same "form" that you and others prescribe so adamantly as a "person". The obvservability and observation OF the Logos is the means by which the Logos is the Son; and the full ontological manifestation of the Rhema Divine content assures immutable ontology regardless of the "location". Observability and observation are the intent and content of God's mind and will being the causative factor in the Logos becoming flesh.

In God's mind and heart of wisely reasoned intelligent pondering of His own unabridged Divinity (which is the content as the Rhema), the Logos IS the Son. That Logos must be visibly manifested to be the Son. That requires eternity as a realm of creation for procession; and it requires the temporality of the cosmos to be fully manifested as a prosopon.

Though all this and much more intricate (and exegetical) detail is what the Modalists have TRIED to convey, they have been woefully unsuccessful because they don't recognize the createdness of eternity, either. As I said, my heart is for full reconciliation of ALL to the truth, not just DyoHypo error of incompleteness. Your issue is thinking the three hypostases is the completeness, though being open to better possible triplicate semantics. It's your concept of discreet threeness that is the incompleteness. And Triadism with multiple sentient consciousnesses is yet further from the truth toward Tritheism.

You underestimate the chasm of subtlety between the distinctions. There're not close. That's what leaves DyoHypo views so far from the truth. It's all because of one word... "person/s". Then personal pronouns are strictly applied ONLY to alleged "persons" when they can't distinguish between "persons" and "beings". Theos is a "He". That's the "being" of the alleged three "persons". Personal pronouns can't distinguish. "He" could be distinct "beings" in every reference. The F/S/HS could be distinct "beings" rather than "persons". Personal pronouns are selectively utilized by DyoHypos. They're actually self-refuting, and it's all because "person/s" has been employed for hypostasis/es and equivocated anthropormorphically in human minds. Incorrect and imprecise language does that.

Logos is the base for logic. When the wrong thing is thought and said, the logic is changed. That's why you can't process my view except to caricature it via your own cognitive filters of logic. You process MY logos on this topic according to YOUR logos. They're incompatible. Bias has to be divested. I've spent 15 years doing it. You've just pursued your own conceptual doctrine and better semantics to avoid OTHER alleged heresies. Capiche?

Back to the topic... That framework (of BOTH created realms of existence) included ALL when, where, what; and it was energized by His own aidios dunamis, the Rhema of which upholds ALL things (both of eternity and of the temporal). The Rhema is the means of His inherent eternality prescribing and undergirding both eternity and the temporality of the cosmos that He condescended to for our salvation and redemption.

There is time-space-matter in eternity, though of a different composition and functionality to temporality according to "metaphysical" parameters by His design to differentiate between merely the aionios and the truly aidios of Himself alone (both contrasted to proskairos).

There are THREE demarcations, not two. God alone is aidios, without beginning OR end (along with the chains under darkness in Jude 1:6, but that's another topic to delineate). All other expression that CAN be without end is aionios. The meaning is contextual, but can only represent no beginning if referring to the truly eternal relative to the everlasting. That's God alone and that which proceeded forth/proceedeth from Him INTO created eternity and temporality.

"Before the beginning", there had been NO prosopon for anyone to observe on earth. Even the angels hadn't seen the prosopon of the Logos being God's Divinity manifested in flesh. The mystery had been hid from ages and from generations. The angelic host didn't know the Logos was the Son. The prosopon hadn't yet been manifested.

Until the manifesation of the Logos in flesh, the hypostasis was God's substance in eternity. The Son had not been revealed yet. The angels weren't the subject recipients of salvation, nor can they be if in rebellion. There is no temporal body of dust for them to be freed from the law of sin and death (in their members). There can therefore be no administration of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. But there was no recognition or revelation of the Son in eternity of heaven prior to the Incarnation. Eternity is created, and thus is among the aion (ages). The mystery hath been hid from ages and from generations. They had no revelation of the Logos as the Son. Only as the substance of God. Salvation and redemption are for mankind, not the angelic host. They're unredeemable. If the princes of this world had known, then would they not have killed Him. None of the host of heaven knew anything of God's redemptive plan.

The Triune view is purposeful enough in expression, that it avoids it.

No. It adds, not subtracts to avoid. There aren't three substances for God.

Ask any modalist or unitarian or polytheist: there is no mistaking that a trinitarian is neither.

A DyoHypoTrin view is fictitious. There aren't three substances for God, even if you call them "persons" and demand others affirm multiple "persons" when there is only one heavenly-immanent substance for God. The express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, which Jesus was in the Incarnation. The express image OF a hypostasis is NOT another hypostasis with yet a third manufactured for the HS. You just gloss over that, both literally and conceptually. It's cognitive dissonance. You not being able to accept something that defies the foundation of your belief system. No caricatures.

They all fight with us, and for good reason. Modalists and unitarians who don't know, call us polytheist and polytheists call us confused modalists.

You're much closer to Polytheism than you realize. A gnat's hair is much thicker than the margin between the two, especially Triadists, which you actually are. You're WAY more on the threeness side than the oneness side. You're TRIune. But it doesn't matter by degree. There aren't three hypostases. God isn't three substances, even if you fallaciously and conceptually demand triplicate replacement semantics for "persons".

You can't both be right :nono: and actually neither really realizes they are half correct but that isn't nearly correct enough, just like it isn't correct in understanding the scriptures.

None of you are correct. None of you recognize the foundation of a created eternity and the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma. And YOU have God as three substances. He's not.

We agree,

No, we don't. Even if you acquiesce in some fashion, you have no idea the scope of eternity being created. There can't BE a DyoHypoTrin doctrine with a created eternity (just as it isn't in scripture). God is NOT three substances. When are you ever going to admit that three "persons" (hypostases) are NOT in scripture? When are you ever going to stop demanding or attempting to utilize another triplicate semantic that still intimates "persons"? It's your cognitive concept demanding according to your filters of world view and ideology. It's NOT theology.

but I insist, for me, in the definition, it be understood that God is relational rather, to His creation(s). He 'dwells' in limited form/representation. Why? Because God is not physical and we think of both heaven and earth and the stars as a 'place' and in physical terms. We are very handicapped in our thinking and conception of a spiritual realm (existence).

I'm not handicapped. I prayed for years and fasted nigh unto death to have the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge (epignosis) of him. Please don't project gnosis onto those with love that has abounded in epignosis (Philippians 1:9). God can reveal anything He chooses from His Word. He has no limitation, including our own. He can provide access to any level of understanding He determines by His grace, and that we have faith to believe according to hearing the Rhema. I've heard the Rhema. I have that confident assurance. The hypostasis of my faith has heard the subject matter of the Rhema being His hypostasis. The foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality and existence (hypostasis) of my faith has heard and hearkened unto the foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence (hypostasis) of ALL things which are upheld by the Rhema I have heard.

My faith hypostasis has heard the Rhema of the Logos, just as Mary's faith hypostasis heard the Rhema of the Logos. Nobody knows what the Rhema is, so they don't have very articulate and specific conscious understanding. That's why doctrines of men have to be substituted in incompleteness. Then people start clinging to terms with multiplied and perverted meanings, like individuated "persons" for a singluar hypostasis; and that makes them conceptually demand "persons' of others in transcendence and an eternity they know nothing about, and so presume others know nothing about.

I had not realized how straightforward you've been because you claim to have a triune view, however, this is decidedly not trinitarian and is heresy.

It's not DYOhypostatic Trinity, no. That should have been obvious from the first post with my reference to being a MONOhypostatic Trinitarian. And no, it isn't heresy, even by the modern terminology of schism and error. It's the truth coming against the established and accepted (wrong) teaching as another school of thought which is the TRUTH.

You're demanding tri- to be "three persons" rather than "three". Tri- is three. Plural hypostases are NOT in scripture, and that's where your "persons" came from. Please try to get that.

John 1:1 - read it again - 'was with God and was God"

Yep, the LOGOS. You demand multiple hypostases again because of your cognitive filter of "persons". It's your foundation. Your foundation is NOT the Word. The Word gives us ONE hypostasis for God. Period. This isn't hard if someone isn't already ideologized to mandate triplicate "persons".

Your mistake and a big one.

Nope. The Logos was God. The Logos was with God. You just don't know what the Logos is/was. You presume the Logos to be an individuated "person" of three. I'm not the one with the problem.

Read these 6 words in relation to one another. There are 6 distinct truths expressed that are true and cannot be undone by any doctrine.

Then don't.

Your belief undoes the clarity of much of John concerning the deity of Christ.

Nope. There's your multiple hypstases filter again. The Logos is what John is referring to. The Logos. The Logos. Will you please read John 1:1? There is no Son there. That presumption is a result of your false doctrine of multiple hypostases and insisting hypostasis equals "person". The greatest damage EVER done to the Christian faith is the English term and perception of "persons". A substance isn't a person, and God isn't three substances anyway.

Your's isn't eisegesis, it isn't even reconciling or understanding this verse at all.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. John 1:1 says LOGOS. You transmogrifiy Logos into an individuated hypostasis of three and call it a "person" instead of a substance. Arrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!

It is very much stuck in 3 dimensions (physical) thinking.

Nope, you are. You envision 3 lateral triplicate things in a physical sense. There aren't 3 ANYTHING. Hypostasis isn't triplicate for God. (Hammer, hammer, pound, pound.):wave:

God is who He claims to be in scripture.

Yep. You just don't realize He doesn't EVER claim to be triplicate hypostases.

You cannot force the text

I don't. I'm not the one multiplying hypostases and calling them "persons". I ONLY utilize what scripture provides. One ousia. One hypostasis. One prosopon. That's it.

when it calls the Spirit Him in the third person

Personal pronouns >>> (rolls eyes)! Personal pronouns also refer to Theos in the singular. Theos is the alleged singular "being" for your alleged three "persons". Personal pronouns don't and can't distinguish. An additional He can be a third "being" just as readily as it can be an alleged "person". This is the most pervasive and inane presumed inference as eisegesis in the history of Christendom.

If you demand personal pronouns are "persons", then God is both one person and three persons. You can't distinguish the pronouns used for the one "being". It's impossible. And there aren't three hypostases anyway. And a hypostasis isn't a person. Lose, lose, lose. Fail, fail, fail. But you will likely refuse to see it no matter how thoroughly I deconstruct it beyond your ability to have ever CONstructed it. It's maddening. You'll fight for conceptual multiple hypostases from pronouns til the cows come home rather than see scripture doesn't give us three of them and they aren't "persons" anyway. Hypostasis is substance. Period. And there's ONE for God. Period.

from Jesus and the Father.

More pronoun presumption. And no distinction between the alleged God ousia and the alleged Father hypostasis, either.

What bible are you reading again? I'm pretty sure it isn't mine, but thank you painting a clear picture for me to address, as asked.

It's not ANY bible that's the problem. You don't have a clear picture at all. Not until you get the fact that scripture ONLY provides ONE hypostasis for God, and a hypostasis in ANY quantity isn't "person/s". Only the outward demonstration of the prosopon for a hypostasis/substance can make it ADJECTIVALLY personAL by descripion, NOT inherent definition. Arrrrrrggggghhhhhh!

I actually think saying such, this simply would have saved us both a lot of time.

I did. And you're still clueless about the MonoHypo truth and the problems of your own heresy.

Perhaps you have a need for discussion and interaction and I'm good with that and don't see the time as lost, but I have to reiterate clearly, and against your view, that anytime another idea is proffered, it must align with all scripture.

I get plenty of discussion and interaction.

Mine does. Yours doesn't. It's sad you can't see that and instead prefer concept and transferance over the literal text.

And I have no need for forum interaction other than that it sharpens me tremendously to deal with others' ridiculous cognitive dissonance and pre-conceptualizations. It's tedious and maddening to deal with such intentional ignorance. You're at least one of the few who is cordial. That doesn't mean ANY of your assessments are valid. You can't even get the basic that God isn't multiple hypostases, and a hypostasis isn't a person.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Word shall never pass away?"
"New heaven and a new earth?"

What? There is no begining or end for the Logos/Son.

This is a good point to express that you don't always dilineate which you are expounding, your own view or one you reject. I have tried to be careful and differentiate when you have not, but this one isn't as easy or you aren't, again, being careful enough when expressing yourself because you 'blend ideas' between the spiritual and physical and do so ▲here▲
This is where you lose people.

Because of the folly of their own indoctrinated unbiblical views.

Again, depending what you mean by persons.

You have no clue what a "person" is by ANY terminology.

Think of it this way: Rather than being static, that is thinking that 'persons' are outside of God, such would have to be eternally within Him?

There aren't any "persons" except the prosopon of the Incarnate Logos. Yes, the substance of God's essence was within Him and WAS Him. That's the Rhema content. The subject matter thought, reasoned, pondered, and spoken BY the Logos. That subject matter was the entirety of God's own Divine essence. The Logos expressed the entire unabridged Divine essence AS substance in eternity, which was spoken and breathed forth. It wasn't external in the sense you're preceiving. You're so physically-minded.

God spoke it FROM within Himself and surrounded His transcendence with eternity while pervasively filling it with His Spirit and His Logos. There was no ontological change, and creation was NOT emantional, but an instantiation of ALL existence apart from God as He INhabiteth the existence He created.

Why? 1) Because He is the totality of everything 2)

That's Pantheism.

Because He is omniscient, no new thought, no new change.

The Logos wasn't "new". The Logos has no beginning.

3) Because (and most specifically): He tells us of Himself before and after creation and the cross and we don't tell Him!

He doesn't qualify it to speak of Himself in specific terms. He was/is the eternal Logos, without beginning or end. You just don't know what the Rhema is. Nobody seems to.

That is, scripture, despite what must make sense or not to you, is what you'd better be busting your can over and Jesus says "The glory I had with you before creation."

Yeah. As the Logos, according to the remainder of the text, especially John 1:1. There is no ontological difference between the Logos and the Son. It's a matter of outward observation of appearance. The Logos hadn't appeared as a prosopon yet.

But you're still stuck on multiple "persons". Good Grief.

For me, that's a double-whammy because there is no time before creation.

Right. So the eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. Why would time make any difference?

There is no 'eternity' in any durative sense.

That's more of your fallacious definition of eternity.

And there can't be a DyoHypoTrin in ANY sense, but especially if eternity is created. You can NEVER have any "how" for the "what" of a DyoHypoTrin doctrine with a created eternity. (And there isn't one in any scenario anyway. There aren't three hypostases FOR a DyoHypoTrin.)

You don't understand any of this. You're stuck in men's doctrine and concepts that attempt to compensate for the truth instead of representing it.

Here's the problem... The apophatic wasn't completely exhausted before moving on to an absolute cataphatic of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. It's really as simple as that.

Therefore, whatever 'distinction' (persons, beings, individuation, or other better term) God says was there before creation and the cross, was there before creation and the cross.

You can't just substitute another triplicate term when there aren't three hypostases. A hypostasis isn't a distinction, etc. And you can't just plug -n- play semantics until you get your predetermined concept into more nebulous semantics that mean nothing to anyone is specificity. A giraffe is a "distinction" from a vacuum cleaner. And there aren't three to distinguish anyway. The only distinction is from the ousia and the ultimate prosopon. You don't have a triplicate ANYTHING as hypostases. But you sure keep scrounging the Scrabble pile for triplicate semantics to substitute for a scriptural singular.

But Yep. God, His Logos, and His Pneuma. The Logos and the Son are coterminous. It's a matter of aspect. The DyoHypoTrin view melds everything into a miasmic mess based on multiple hypostases and an UNcreated eternity presumed to be God's inherent transcendent realm of existence.

I am not so much against what you say, but what you negate here.

I negate nothing. On the contrary, I present the TRUE AND FULL DEITY OF CHRIST. He's not just 1/3 OF God. He's fully the entire and unabridged content of God's Divinity in/as a man via the Rhema of the Logos. The Son. Not the Father. But all Sons are fathered, not just "eternally generated" (what silliness). I represent a fathered and begotten eternal Son. The DyoHypo Son is UNfathered and UNbegotten. That's an illegitimate Son.

Your Son is not the portion of God that the Father and the Holy Spirit is, even with perichoresis.

That is, I think you have a good observation, I think and an incomplete observation that the triune view embraces and you are wrong to reject.

Maybe read the above. I'm not the one with the extra-biblical concept.

Thanks again for clarity here. I know pretty much what you believe and can address it in a straight forward manner and in a way, I hope, that others can follow along and see where we are both coming from.

Ummm... I doubt it. You have done nothing but caricature it while maintaining your errors and projecting things upon me and the MonoHypoTrin.

Yup. :up:

For me? :nono: When I write "Logos" <--that word is not Jesus right here on this page. I'm not sure how persnickety your 'literal' is, but I'm saying 'no' at this point in time:
I suppose it'd be like a transubstantiation discussion on "This (bread) is my (literal) body." (Cannibalism never entered my mind when reading that scripture). The easy answer for transubstantiation is that it is 'literal' but not in a 'physical' sense. The Catholics do not like that idea because 'spiritual' for some reason doesn't mean 'literal' to them.
In a literal and spiritual sense, John 1:18 spells out logos clearly in a Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15 manner:

Your Son wasn't and isn't the Logos except in title only. A Logos isn't a "person". But God is so far beyond all we can think or know that His Logos created ALL (including eternity of heaven) and was embodied in flesh as Theanthropos.

So yep. You just don't know what it spells. You're still demanding the concept of a triplicate of "persons" rather than a singuar substance. There's a huge difference between three persons and a singular substance. Scripture gives us the LATTER.

God is not "persons" of ANY quantity. God is a transcendent essence whose Divinity was expressed distinct from Himself by the Logos as it and the Spirit (being His singular substance) filled the created realm of eternity and the created realm of the cosmos. Then the Logos was Incarnate as a prosopon. That's the only "person" in the whole thing. And it's NOT modal or representative of a creative act at any point for the Son or the Spirit.

You're looking BACK upon Divinity, presuming that the Son has always been the Son since transcendence. And now that He's been manifested as a prosopon, He WAS. Once instantiated, the inward is permanently the outward. No ontological change. Immutable. It's the only way we could ever see Divinity.

As being both. I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you have God, somehow making Jesus as God (as well as man), at conception.

Nope. Conception is NOT inception. The Logos is literally the externalized substance of God's essence; processed into eternity and conceived into temporality. The hypostasis of God, born in Mary's womb by the hypostasis of her faith which heard the Rhema (which was the content of God's substance: hypostasis). THERE's your Hypostatic Union, and it isn't from multiple hypostasis as God.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema. Faith is a hypostasis. God's entire Divinity was the content of the Rhema. The Logos was the seed.

John 1:1 says that didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

But as far as you're concerned, the Son isn't even the actual Logos. Logos is merely a title for your Son. You have to have multiple "persons", no matter what. Your extra-bibllical concept demands it, and so do you. That's not MY error. So your Son wasn't the Logos; He was just called the Logos by John. You represent a Son who was never the Logos at all.

You mean because we say He was that before creation?

Yep.

Makes sense. It is an interesting idea.

It's much more than that.

I think it still bouncing between heresies, but agree that it isn' quite modal, and not really unitarian.

It's wholly neither. It reconciles them AND your DyoHypo heresy, along with all others. Jesus reconciles ALL things unto Himself. He doesn't divide with doctrine.

You actually sound like a philosophical open theist because you are rejecting immutability here,

Bite your tongue..... OFF. I despise the sovereignty-destroying anti-Christian views of ALL Process Theology, including Open Theism that mimics emanationism and other Postmodernist thinking, etc. And I eschew the sophistry that was the foundation and context of the formulation of the fallacious DyoHypoTrin doctrine.

There is NO mutability of ontology whatsoever with God and His essence or substance. Period. None. God's ontological Deity supercedes ALL else in created existence, regardless of anyone's perception from their feeble carnal mind in a created and temporal realm.

with this statement (they reject omni's and these others of God's character).

I know. It's repugnant.

For me, this change is more like the face of a clock. "Technically" the face changes but immutability of a clock is that it is the way it is going to be forever. They say 'but its face changes thus is not the way it is going to be forever." We say, yes, but it is consistent unchanging for the moments it address and will never change for them: 6:32:58 will always see the same face.

A clock can't possibly or remotely represent God's Self-existence OR created eternity contrasted to temporality. It's silly. Semantics that ignores foundational truth from either perspective.

I understand now, that you read Hebrews 13:8 as durative,

Nope. I don't engage in that dichotomous paradigm. You can't filter my view through that lens.

but the interchangeablity in which God presents Himself in scripture leave us knowing God intended it: Isaiah 9:6 Colossians 1:15-19 with Genesis 1

Nope.

No, I didn't think you did. You said as much when you came here.

It's my confident assurance of faith, not callous and adversarial or arrogant.

Rather, He didn't 'become' so, as if some even can change the character or nature of God? :nono:

You've misunderstood.

If you say so. I don't see it as much closer at all.

That's because you're looking for multiple hypostases that don't exist scirpturally. Again, your issue.

I don't believe so.

Subjective belief doesn't determine objective reality. Your logos doesn't stipulate God's hypostasis (which is singular).

Er, I said it first, remember? As to persons, I prefer three 'distinctions'

God, His Logos, and His Pneuma are distinct. You're fudging with semantics. You're still conceptually demanding three "persons" that don't and haven't ever existed.

but such isn't sufficient for distancing from modalists because we (trinitarians) need to ensure we mean both. Why? Because this what scriptures say. Again, John 1:1 says both.

Nope. Logos. Not Son.

This is why we are not triad (polytheist) or modal.

You're a Triadist. Not a Tritheist, but a Triadist. Not a Creedal Trinitarian.

If you think so, you are only paying attention to half a picture. If you only see platypus' beak, you are going to say I believe in a duck.

Yeah, you've only seen his tail and think He's multiple beavers somehow.:rotfl:

Such is incorrect and understand me incorrectly. I am both tri-and -une and can only affirm it so many times.

You're WAY more Tri- than -Une. WAY more. I have them in balance scripturally. You just don't see it because you demand threeness to be "persons" that don't exist. And a substance isn't a person. It's personAL when revealed in a prosopon. God isn't a person of ANY quantity, though His Logos was manifest in flesh AS one (but it's a prosopon, not a hypostasis).

First, I thought I made a clear distinction between eternal and everlasting.

You did. It's not exactly correct, though. And you denied the creation of eternity until this post. But a DyoHypoTrin is impossible with created eternity. You just don't know why.

Eternal is the nondurative, (or duratively unconstrained) quality of God while everlasting deals with the aspects of His creation in which He interacts with us but is not bound to.

Nope. Too many convos with Open Theist heretics.

As far as 'three' it is 'both.' I can only say that, again, so many times. You are way more modal than you think you are,

Nope. I'm MONOhypostatic. Just like scripture. There isn't one hint of modality in anything I've said. You process monohypostatic as modal. It's not. Yes, I will always be closer to other monohypostatic positions in many ways. That's inherent.

if you do not (and have not shown yourself to) understand this clearly.

I understand appropriately that I'm monohypostatic, not modal. HUGE disparity, whether you realize it or not.

Again, as a reminder, God tells you He is both quite clearly in John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6.

Not anything like you conceptualize. Nope.

There are both sentiments clearly given in scripture and again, our main concern has to do with a person denying either one or both of 'both' as God has given such to us.

You do. You deny God is one substance (hypostasis).

Ask in a clearer and more straightforward manner and in keeping with scriptures. If you are asking me for the 'triune' verse, keep looking and asking.

I'm asking for three hypostases in scripture. Keep glossing because your cognitive dissonance demands multiple "persons" in some manner.

There are, however, clear indications that are exegetical. John 1:1 tells you plainly 'both,' for instance.

Nope. It tells me the Logos was God and was with God. You install verse 18 in verse 1, conjoined and eternalized or whatever. LOL.

Yup. Do you mean 'Father' here synonymously? Such is incorrect.

Nope. Not the Father.

Yes He is, but not 'just' three distinctions.

Good grief. "Distinctions" aren't singular either. No three of anything. The Tri- can't be hypostatic. It must be something else.

I believe I said so too, on multiple occasions.

?

Not if you don't learn to be more clear.

I've spared the effort before. Expended some of it above a bit.

Really? Disagreement is where you drew the line?

No. I thought you were finished and out of patience.

Frankly, I knew a week ago you disagreed with us and were not interested in reformation. Maybe you get too many write-offs

Yep. By endless indoctrinated and ideologized idiots. No nice way to say it and it's not personal toward anyone.

but this wasn't one other than getting to the gist of the conversation and posting my position as well.

Okay, fair enough. I've expended some effort to articulate now. I usually avoid it out of futility and the whole pearls/swine thing.

Such can move the thread along. I do use this material, as I said for reference in other discussions and it is my hope such is used by others.

At any rate...

:wave:

Good exchange. I've reciprocated with content. See ya if you respond. :wave:

 

[Lon]

Other than just saying 3, three 'somethings' needs clarity. Three is an adjective. One is an adjective.▼
Example: He has one.

One what? This is an incomplete thought. The pertinent first sentence is missing.

It 'seems' you communicate this way, on purpose. It isn't just lexical, it is omission, purposeful or otherwise.


There is no sense that you are 'tri-' -une to simply say 'three.'
Modalists (common term, I think you correct, but such expresses the problem sufficiently without getting hung up that it doesn't exactly identify) believe in three individualizations of the same being.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Other than just saying 3, three 'somethings' needs clarity. Three is an adjective. One is an adjective.▼
Example: He has one.

F/S/HS are three, not one. They don't have to be a triplicate of the same thing to be tri-. This is just silly, and your attempt to force a triplicate same-something concept.

There are three in unity. F/S/HS. It's NOT a Dyohypostatic Trinity.

You STILL ignore that God is ONE hypostasis in scripture.

One what? This is an incomplete thought. The pertinent first sentence is missing.

Nope. More conceptual demands.

It 'seems' you communicate this way, on purpose. It isn't just lexical, it is omission, purposeful or otherwise.

Nope. It's simple quantification. There are three. F/S/HS. They just aren't all the same triplicate "whats". That doesn't negate the threeness being a tri-.

More conceptual demands.

Please provide the multiple hypostases from the text. YOUR three doesn't even exist, so don't tell me about validity of threeness in quantification.:rotfl:

There is no sense that you are 'tri-' -une to simply say 'three.'

Sure I am. You don't get to make such demands from your faulty doctrinal perspective. Provide three hypostases from the text (NOT from pronouns).

I TOLD you I'm not triune in the sense that you are at all. I TOLD you that. That's because I won't just try to substitute another triplicate semantic for a non-triplicate.

Modalists (common term, I think you correct, but such expresses the problem sufficiently without getting hung up that it doesn't exactly identify) believe in three individualizations of the same being.

Nope. Three manifestations. There is only one. Jesus Christ the righteous, our God and Savior as the Logos made flesh.

I'm not a Modalist. Keep wiggling, but God hasn't ever been; isn't now; and won't ever be three hypostases. And a hypostasis isn't a "person" anyway. He's immutable, and THAT's immutable. It doesn't matter than you and a majority have mutated it and triplicated it.

A hypostasis isn't a "persons", and there aren't three of them for God. It ain't rocket surgery at this point.

Cognitive Dissonance. Refusal to believe the truth in favor of an already-helf belief.

I'm not the one with the incorrect number of hypostases. :wave:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You think?

I do not hold to the "Catholic councils."

I am a Reformed Protestant that holds to the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, and MOST importantly the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The RCC councils deny Sola Scriptura, so do you know what you are talking about? And I highly doubt pps is offering apologetics in defence of the Catholic councils. If he says they are not biblical, I agree with him on that point . . . but the RCC councils have not been referenced in this thread, as far as I am aware.

No, he did not and that is just a silly thing to post . . .

Are you still referring to Catholic councils?

Duh . . . yes. No argument. So?

Yep. What I do. And what the historical Protestant church fathers always practiced . . . and upon the basis of Sola Scriptura provided the Protestant confessions faith accordingly, in order to protect the church from error, heresies, and unscriptural false teachers.

IOW's, belief in Sola Scriptura does not preclude the spiritual benefits of adhering to the Creedal guidelines, which were founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura, to begin with.

Hmmm... Since there aren't three "persons" (hypostases) in scripture, you are more like Nada Scriptura.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

God is one person.

heis one is a masculine one, and when conjoined with theos by grammer can only be one person/personage and never is represented by three, theos is one a sole one as a person and not three persons/beings 'one' heis-in the greekthayer- a cardinal numeral; one, where it takes the place of a predicate it means one person.pg 186 a grk lexicon of the n.t. a.t.robertson-one when masculine sets forth the idea of the cardinal numeral 'one' when referring to people or beings always the numeral one is implied.pg 186 vol 5 word pictures of the grk n.t. andpg 526-527 vol 4,pg299 vol4 word pict..n.t. bauer-masculine 'one' a single one pg 230 bauers greek lexicon gingrich- equivalent to protos first, only one; single pg 57 shorter lexiconof grk n.t. now hen -0ne youngs one hen when neuter means one thing, pg 719 youngs anaylyticalconcordance of the bible, thayer one when neuter means to be united,in one will or spirit. pg 186-187ibid a.t.robertson one when neuter shows a unity;a oneness of indentity pg 526vol 4 ibidpg 186 ibid vine- one/hen when neuter may be used to show a numeral one of a thing or it may be used to show unity of more than one or someone or thing. 'heis'(the power of the masculine one) a. t. robertson eph 2:14: verse 14 for he is our peace, who hath made both one...(hen)hath made both one 'one' is neuter. "hen" two peoples become one. unity is understood in light of the neuter one. word pictures of the n.t. vol. 4. page 526 & 527. robertson galatians 3:28;verse 28 there is neither jew nor greek, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in christ jesus.'one' is masculine. "heis" no word for man in the greek. yet, man is understood because of masculine 'one' - heis. vincent: "one moral personality" word pictures in the n.t. vol. 4. page 299 'heis'(the power of the masculine one) joseph henry thayer galatians 3:20 & 28;..but god is one..for ye are all one in christ. the word 'one' is masculine; heis thayer: "ye that adhere to christ make one person, just as the lord himself." 'hen' (examples of the neuter one) the form of the numeral used when two or more persons are said to exist as 'one' is the nominative neuter form "hen"
1. jn. 11:52 and not for that nation only but that also he should gather unto one (hen) the children of god that were scattered abroad. (many people were to be made one, therefore hen was the proper word to use).
2. icor. 3:6-8 i have planted, apollos watered but god gave the increase, so then neither he that planteth is anything, neither he that watereth, but god that giveth the increase. now he that planteth and he that watereth are one(hen).a. two people are said to be one.b. (hen) not heis is used because two people are said to be one in the sense of unity.
3. eph. 2:14 for he is our peace, who hath made both one (hen) and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.a. 'both' jews and gentiles b. two croups of people 'one' person c. (hen) is required to describe the oneness as a unity. 'one'(heis and hen)(masculine and neuter)
facts to consider:
1. the nominative masculine form 'heis' is used throughout the n.t. for one person.
2. scholars confirm that 'heis' means one person
3. no other evidence in scriptures or otherwise has been presented in trinitarian controversies to indicate that 'heis' ever refers to persons.
4. whenever two or more persons are stated to be one in scripture, their state of unity is described by 'hen'. this form is used to dipict the "one body"which consists of many members. icor. 12:125. scholars verify that 'hen' is used when persons are involved.6. "hen" is never used in scripture to modify god.
7. each time the greek n. t. speaks of god as being one, it employs "heis"to describe

continued--

 

[Lazy afternoon]

that oneness. thsu, eleven (11) times the n.t. speaks of god as one person.
8. the above facts might be contested, but they cannot be disputed. in plain simple greek, god conveys to the world that he is one, and the evidence is overwhelming that the word chosen by him to assert his unity means "one person" or "one single being"
the big eleven(heis)a. each time the gk. n.t. uses the word 'one' in reference to god it employs the numeral "heis" b. the gk. numeral "heis" declares god to be one person.
1. mk. 2:7 why doth this man thus speak? he blashemeth; who can forgive sins but one (heis) even god? asv
2. mk, 10:18 and jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but one (heis) that is god.
3. mk. 12:29 and jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is,hear, o israel; the lord our god is one (heis) lord.
4. lk. 18:19 and jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? none is good,save one (heis), that is, god.
5. rom. 3:30 seeing it is one (heis) god, which shall justify the circumsion through faith.
6. icor. 8:4 concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificied to idols,we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no god but one asv.
7. icor. 8:6 but to us there is but one (heis) god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him.
8. gal. 3:20 now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but god is one (heis)
9. eph, 4:6 one (heis) god and father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all.
10. i tim, 2:5 for there is one (heis) god, and one mediator between god and men, the man christ jesus.
11. james 2:19 thou believest that there is one (heis) god; thou doest well;the devils also believe and tremble. "one god" (the first commandment) mark 12:29 and jesus answered him. the first of all the commandments is. hear o israel;the lord our god is one lord. duet 6:4
fact: the greek word for 'one' in this passage is heis. fact: according to 'bauer's creek lexicon page 230 heis means a single only one.
fact: heis found 93 + times in the n.t. relating to people. never is it used for more than one person. never!
fact: heis is the greek masculine 'one' a.t. robertson, the masuline 'one' implies one person only. (word pictures, vol. 5 page 186) the strength of the masculine one to indicate one person is seen in ga. 3:28 'one god'(galatians 3:20) now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but god is one. i. but god is 'one' a. 'one' is heis - masculine b. 'one' takes the place of the predicate in this clause. conclusion: c. god is 'one' person. see; thayer page 186 a greek english lexicon of then.t. 'one god'(galatians 3:20) i. scholars comment on gal, 3:20,. a. kenneth s. wuest, wuest's word studies from the greek n.t. vol. 1, page106 "the word 'one' is masuline in gender, and therefore is personal, referring to a person." op. cit. page 107 'now, the mediator is not (a go-between representing the interests) of one (indivual), but god is one (indivual)." b. bratcher: "but a go-between is not needed when there is only one person; and god is one." c. the amplified bible:"now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party - there can be no mediator with just one person, yet god is (only) one person."

From my files.

LA

 

[Lon]

F/S/HS are three, not one. They don't have to be a triplicate of the same thing to be tri-. This is just silly, and your attempt to force a triplicate same-something concept.

Okay, correct me if I am wrong: we are disagreeing upon what is 'three.' For you, it is three 'expressions' or something. No modalist I know of would disagree with that. I think you are shoring up with scripture though. I have solid problems with modalism. I have some with your position in that you seem to think an 'event' conveys a difference or change in the nature of God. Incarnation doesn't do that. However, I understand, I think, that you are saying God was very much one before creation and that we need to embrace this part of -une. HOWEVER, such is a 'correction' and reformation, not a usurped theology with another. Because of that, I'll wonder about your position, probably for weeks to come. I don't think but that I can label it as a kind of hybrid of modal/triune thinking, for current assessment.

There are three in unity. F/S/HS. It's NOT a Dyohypostatic Trinity.

You STILL ignore that God is ONE hypostasis in scripture.

Er, I'm the one who said "both." Both is not ignoring. If you want to say I'm not logical, I've no problem with that. The doctrine isn't wholly apprehended by me, but probably 'what it is not.' I 'think' I've got a decent grasp, however slippery, but I don't mind someone else's assessment. I'm an artist and am pretty good, but I don't take time to really draw my self-portrait accurately (can only stand so much introspection). I just don't assess 'ignorant' of myself at this time.

Nope. More conceptual demands.

▲Similarly▲ your own risidual self-image might not be how other's see you.

Nope. It's simple quantification. There are three. F/S/HS. They just aren't all the same triplicate "whats". That doesn't negate the threeness being a tri-.

It can certainly negate the three, as one though.
Here is what I believe: I think those who have been through God's nature in Systematic Theology class, have thought of these issues and wrestled with them, so I don't think there is anything new there. You haven't, imo, revealed anything new to me at this venture. It is all within orthodox and heterodox discussion (I've seen the 'ideas' expressed before, if not altogether in every conversation).

I also believe, we understand our triune terms, if not understood in the context of scriptures or if overtly purported can be problematic, but these are 'term' problems, not idea problems. For instance, I've yet to see any difference but 'semantics' at this point in time. If you are going to argue against our 'physical' concept of persons, I've already covered this well in class long before our discussion. Lay people do not get to this exacting of a discussion, but I'm quite comfortable with the triune expressions.
More conceptual demands.

Please provide the multiple hypostases from the text. YOUR three doesn't even exist, so don't tell me about validity of threeness in quantification.:rotfl:

Laugh as you like. You can't even simplify your allegation, let alone lay out my view in laymen's terms or your own in laymen's terms. Maybe it is my gifting, but if I come to someone with a correction, I'm usually fairly competent to make it plain to them. That doesn't mean they must agree, but I 'think' every unitarian (for instance)on TOL knows exactly what I believe and exactly what problems I have with their doctrine.

Very (incredibly) simply, Unitarians believe Christ is a created being who did not exist prior to incarnation. Scripture plainly says He did/does.

▲didn't even take a paragraph▲ Why? I'm cogent and competent to state the matter clearly so there is no guess work or waste of time.

Try another? Sure: Mormonism: The basic difference between myself and a Mormon is they do not understand the deity of Christ as unique and unnattainable. For them, Jesus is no more or less than any man like Joseph Smith, who attained godliness.

▲didn't take much more in length nor any lexicon work to get through▲

How about we head it off at the pass:

"The triune view is more difficult to traverse."

Agreed, however, here it is in an easily understood nutshell in a very short space:

"The triune/trinitarian view is one that believes God has described/revealed Himself in scripture as one God expressed as three distinct 'existences' as Father, Son, and Spirit ("being" or "persons" are clearer for conveyance and discussion).

Sure I am. You don't get to make such demands from your faulty doctrinal perspective. Provide three hypostases from the text (NOT from pronouns).

I TOLD you I'm not triune in the sense that you are at all. I TOLD you that. That's because I won't just try to substitute another triplicate semantic for a non-triplicate.



Nope. Three manifestations. There is only one. Jesus Christ the righteous, our God and Savior as the Logos made flesh.

Doesn't fit all of John 17, for me.

I'm not a Modalist. Keep wiggling, but God hasn't ever been; isn't now; and won't ever be three hypostases. And a hypostasis isn't a "person" anyway. He's immutable, and THAT's immutable. It doesn't matter than you and a majority have mutated it and triplicated it.

Again, does not fit most to all of John. You can 'assert' it just as much as you like. In the end, I'm not really interested in definitions which are incredibly clear or incredibly unclear. I'm interested in scripture and have posted a few in our conversation.

A hypostasis isn't a "persons", and there aren't three of them for God. It ain't rocket surgery at this point.

Disagree: "Both."

Cognitive Dissonance. Refusal to believe the truth in favor of an already-helf belief.

I'm not the one with the incorrect number of hypostases. :wave:

Actually, at this point, I believe you are, not that you've been easily or entirely clear by any means. I can, I think, however assert it is you based on your stated purpose and self-placement outside of trinitarians and our doctrines.