ECT Our triune God

[jamie]

He has the names, titles, attributes, deeds, position, etc. of the Father.

Except one, Jesus is not the Most High God. Jesus has the same God we do.

 

[godrulz]

Except one, Jesus is not the Most High God. Jesus has the same God we do.

Is. 9:6=Messiah/Jesus=Mighty God.

Is. 10:21=YHWH=Mighty God (el gibbor in Hebrew).

JWs say that Jesus is Mighty God, not Almighty God. This is a nonsensical argument since there is one true God according to Isaiah and many false gods with YHWH knowing no other gods (polytheism) and not forming any gods before or after Him.

The key is GOD, not the adjective. Holy, loving, mighty, Almighty, Sovereign, righteous, faithful, merciful, etc. all modify GOD, not God and a god.

What group do you identify with? Your views are JW/Arian, cultic, not biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity.

Jn. 1:1; Jn. 5:18; Jn. 10:30-33; Jn. 8:58; Jn. 20:28, etc. with Revelation Alpha/Omega, First/Last/Beginning/End, etc. is sufficient to refute your view.

 

[jamie]

...is sufficient to refute your view.

And two words refute your view, Most High.

 

[keypurr]

If Jesus Christ is the Son of the most high, WHO IS THE MOST HIGH GOD?

 

[godrulz]

And two words refute your view, Most High.

God is Most High, but Jesus is also Almighty/Most High. He is YHWH.

 

[godrulz]

If Jesus Christ is the Son of the most high, WHO IS THE MOST HIGH GOD?

Most High refers to the one true God, but God is triune, not solitary, so Father, Son, Holy Spirit or GOD can be said to be Most High. Son of God is equality of nature, not inferiority.

 

[jamie]

If Jesus Christ is the Son of the most high, WHO IS THE MOST HIGH GOD?

The Most High is the one to whom Jesus prayed and to whom he instructed the Jews to pray, specifically our Father in heaven.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)​

The Most High is Christ's God, the one who resurrected him from the dead.

 

[jamie]

If Jesus Christ is the Son of the most high, WHO IS THE MOST HIGH GOD?

I'm surprised you are not familiar with this term. I am aware that you complained to the moderators about my use of the term, but the term is used in 48 verses of the Bible. Here is one example.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. (Hebrews 7:1)​

I realize trinitarians don't like the term because it clearly indicates Jesus Christ is subject to his Father's authority rather than being co-equal.

You probably ought to complain to the moderators about the letter to the Hebrews using the term Most High God since you don't believe there is such a thing. Co-equal? Not even.

So go ahead and complain about my continued use of the term. Maybe I should complain about your complaining. If I am banned for using the term Most High then I shouldn't be here to begin with.

Why don't you post a list of all the biblical terms to which you object. At least that would give a more fair playing field. As it is I had no reason to believe you would be offended by the use of the term Most High. There, I've said it again, so complain again.

Someone should complain about frivolous complaints. It won't be me because I'm not a complainer nor a tattle tale. Maybe you should be the one to complain about your frivolous complaint since you've had practice complaining.

 

[godrulz]

The Most High is the one to whom Jesus prayed and to whom he instructed the Jews to pray, specifically our Father in heaven.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)​

The Most High is Christ's God, the one who resurrected him from the dead.

Headship is functional, not ontological. A husband and wife are equal in their human nature, but headship is a functional issue. Other verses show the essential, eternal equality of Father and Son, with a functional/positional subordination during incarnation, etc.

keypurr is anti-trin and agrees with you.

 

[jamie]

keypurr is anti-trin and agrees with you.

I don't think so or he would not have complained about my use of the term Most High. That doesn't make sense.

Most High is a biblical term used in 48 verses of the Bible. It's not something I just made up. It never occured to me that someone would be offended by the term and complain to the moderators.

I didn't mean it to be offensive but I guess I will hear about it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This may have been mentioned before, but as I mentioned in another thread, I think Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1 pretty much settle this debate in our favor.

 

[Lon]

This may have been mentioned before, but as I mentioned in another thread, I think Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1 pretty much settle this debate in our favor.

Genesis 1:26

John 1:1

Don't forget Luke 8:39...

:up:

 

[OneGodInChrist]

God's self-revelation is progressive. There was a transition in fuller understanding. At one point, they probably thought Jesus was Messiah, but were not clear on His Deity until later. Jesus revealed more about the Holy Spirit in Jn. 14-16, not at the start of His ministry. They would have understood His claims to Deity (Son of God, forgive sins, right hand of Father, one with Father, etc....the Pharisees also did, but rejected it as blasphemy).

It is not clear when any individual understood God's triune nature hinted at in the OT and fully revealed by the closing of the canon. They had a pre-theoretical approach before later formalizations in response to heretical attacks on the view that was held even if not understood fully.

The history of dogma and church history would shed light, but the important thing for us is what does the Scriptures teach now that we have them.

I totally agree with your first paragraph that Christ's Deity was revealed progressively, even to the apostles. However, I also believe that by the Day of Pentecost it had been revealed to them in its entirety.

Does the Bible teach that Jesus is God? Absolutely.
Does it teach that He was God manifest (revealed) in flesh? Yes.
Does it teach that He is the Son of God? Yes.
Does it teach that before Bethlehem He existed as "God the Son"? No. In fact, the term "God the Son" was foreign to the apostles. However, they did know Him as the Son of God.

Did they teach that Jesus was God? Yes. And they knew that meant that He was also the Father of the OT, not some second century man-made concept of a triune God, but God revealed in flesh, period.

David's prayer of repentance was "take not thy Holy Spirit from me." David had no concept of a triune God...he knew that God was one (Deu. 6:4, etc.). He was simply saying "Don't take your Spirit which is holy from me."

The only reason you find this a tough concept godrulz is because you've been taught differently. Also, you will always struggle with the Math. 28:19/Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5. The difference between you and I godrulz is you think you have the truth, but I KNOW I do. That's not at all arrogance, but confidence.

God bless,

OGIC

 

[godrulz]

I KNOW that the triune understanding is the biblical, historical, orthodox view, while your view is the unbiblical one. You know that you know, but you are wrong in your subjectivity.

 

[Lon]

How the Triune view fits within Orthodoxy, Contribution from Muz

How the Triune view fits within Orthodoxy, Contribution from Muz

I actually am an Evangelical. A mild protestant, even. Yet, the defining creeds and councils of the Church are important doctrines for its definition and foundation. Even the protestant reformers didn't disagree with them. Indeed, Luther agreed that the tradition of the Church was very important, just not on par with the authority of Scripture.

But by the same token we cannot simply discard tradition because we don't like it.

Said well and an important expression of orthodoxy,

Thanks Muz

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One and three. John 1:1

There aren't any hypostases directly referred to in John 1:1; and only the Logos and God are mentioned. Again, you're attempting inference based on a concept from your indoctrination and ideology over theology.

So... You've presumed the Logos is the Son and that there is no way in which the Son was EVER the literal Logos, leaving Logos as merely a title FOR the Son. The DyoHypoTrin Son was never the Logos.

There is no Holy Spirit referenced in John 1:1, and nothing in all of the text tells us there are multiple hypostases for God. The only place one can go to is Hebrews 1:3. Period.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Your own words condemn you.

Nope.

"very substance of His own essence forth"...

exerchomai (John 8:42)
ekporeuomai (John 15:26)

And you don't know what Rhema is.

"the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma being ex-/ek- God's own Self-subsistence and Self-existence INTO eternity when/as He created it.

exerchomai and ekporeuomai. You do know that ex- and ek- are prefixes in Greek indicating out of/out from. (So much for the alleged O/orthodox "internal processions" of the alleged multiple hypostases.)

A realm of existence doesn't contain or constrain Him to its existence and subsistence."

Exactly. God is Self-existent and Self-subsistent.

There's not a hint of emanation. No Pantheism. Procession is NOT emanation. If so, you'd have the same problem, and in addition to all your other self-refuting DyoHypoTrin fallacies.

But your inherent view that God is contained and constrained BY UNcreated eternity is PanEntheism. The EOC not only admits to such, but claims it.

And on and on. You are so caught up in trying to speak with flowery words that you do not see how convoluted your view has become.

My view isn't convoluted in the least. God alone is UNcreated. Eternity is created. The processions of the Logos and the Pneuma were ex- and ek- rather than "internal". That's not convoluted at all.

But YOUR God being contained and constrained by UNcreated eternity makes Him impotent and immanent. THAT's convoluted; and it requires the unscriptural manufacturing of two additional hypostases. There's your on and on.

No, you are but the aristarch who arrogantly assumes all the church divines somehow were "clueless" and now you are here as our oracle to set us all aright. Sigh.

I'm not an oracle, I'm but a humble didaskalos. And I hold the ANFs and ECFs in high esteem. Many of their thoughts and writings were brilliant and annointed, befitting their hearts for truth. They weren't clueless at all. They got most of it right. They simply never considered a created eternity and the appropriate processions of the Logos and the Pneuma.

I have. Search for my userid and "Trinity" at this site and you will find yourself quite busy with more than just snippets and teasers. Your turn now. :AMR:

Your indoctrinated opinions as a DyoHypoTrin and false-dichotomist (Calvinist) mean less than nothing to me. Feel free to continue to derive worth from your screen name.

Lon is a treasure among us. An eristic such as you would do well to pay serious attention to the man.

I like Lon. I don't need to pay serious attention to ANY DyoHypoTrin at your behest, though. Notice Lon had to study for responses to my posts. I'm not sure why you think I'd need to acquiesce to him.

Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; yet at the same time the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Agree so far?

Yep. I outlined that in my affirmations, and have tirelessly represented all of it and much more. I affirm every sub-tenet that contributes to the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. I'm not a Modalist or any other view considered to be heretical (by heretical DyoHypoTrins).

When God the Son assumed a human nature, what was going on in your view?

"God the Son" didn't assume a human nature. God's Logos became flesh as Theanthropos. The O/orthodox Cyrilian formula will suffice, but not applied to one of multiple hypostases. God is only one hypostasis per Hebrews 1:3.

Was that humanity individuated such that it could exist without the assumption by the divine?

No. It couldn't have existed if not for the divine.

Where is the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus Christ now?

In the eternity of heaven, in the justified position of glory and honor and authority that dexios represents. Distinct from the ousia of God.

Is the union between the divine and the human still existing?

Yes, for all everlasting.

How many persons existed in the Incarnate Christ?

The Incarnate Christ was only one prosopon (person) as Theanthropos.

You continue to cavil about the ignorance of others. First set aside your choleric nature,

I'm not choleric, I'm sanguine.

and if you want academic discussion of a complex theological topic you are hanging around the wrong venues, then foolishly concluding everyone is ignorant.

I'm not sure what difference that makes when posters are adamant, condescending, and incorrect.

No need to quote Calvin, let me help here:

Spoiler

1. THE doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients thought he spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything we do not see is God (Senec. Præf. lib. 1 Quæst. Nat.) In this way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate portion of the world.

But although God, in order to keep us within the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind.

His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place.

It is true, indeed, that as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the world, that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity.

And here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.

2. But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge.

Moreover, lest any one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human invention, let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so.

When the Apostle calls the Son of God “the express image of his person,” (Heb. 1:3), he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax), were not only harsh but absurd.

For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper, nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image (χαρακτηρ). But because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him.

And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, viz., that he is “the brightness of his glory.” The fair inference from the Apostle’s words is, that there is a proper subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son.

From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence (hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father.

The same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father.

This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were impious to multiply.

If credit, then, is given to the Apostle’s testimony, it follows that there are three persons (hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑποστασις, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term.

The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three προσωπα (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.

....

6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence.

For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it.

Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other.

Src: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 13, 2, 6).

Yawn. Yep. Like all those before and after him, Calvin also infers the express image OF a hypostasis to be an additional hypostasis; with yet another prescribed to/for/as the Holy Spirit. Then we get the shenanigans of Greek to Latin to English and have three "persons" that have morphed to have individated sentience consciousness. Multiple minds and wills.

None of this is in scripture. Scripture gives us a hypostasis (God); the express image OF that hypostasis (the Son), which would be a prosopon rather than another hypostasis. And from other derivations, we get ousia for God.

As Calvin rightly observed having folks like yourself in mind: But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human invention, let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so...

I'm not the one inferring hypostases are literally anthropomorphic. I know exactly what a hypostasis is and how the term was used in formulation of Theology Proper for the fallacious DyoHypoTrin doctrine. It's YOUR peers who largely anthropomorphize the term to be Triadists.

So don't apply your continued misrepresentation to me when it belongs to your Triadist peers. That's been my criticism all along.

The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑποστασις, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term.

The impoverishment of Latin words compared to the Greek is and was well understood by the church. The Latin substance has a etymological connection to hypostasis and its attraction to translators is well-known. Given the fact that substance was used in theology proper, ousia {being, essence}, do we render ousia strictly as essence, assigning substance to hypostasis, leave substance in correspondence with ousia, and translate hypostasis as subsistence. This logomacy has not been fully settled, but it is not as bankrupt as you make it out to be by any means. And it is understood among theologians that hypostasis does not mean person, yet we take no issue when one man prefers hypostasis and another man prefers person.

The plain facts are that person and hypostasis are not immiscible. Scripture sees no issue with person (prosopon) as well. For example, in Hebrews 9:24 it is clear that prosopon is not being used to signify that Father and Son are the same person. Scripture refers to our Lord as a person (2 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10), God the Father as a person (Revelation 6:16; Matthew 18:10;Acts 3:19-20;Hebrews 9:24), and, yes, even the Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11;Psalm 139:7). Nor was not lost on Boethius, Hippolytus, nor especially Didymus' {'mia ousia, treis hypostases}, and even Origen, also speaking "of the three hypostases", if you have read them.

If you know your history, the Latin terms substantia and subsistentia were often used as synonyms, each word conveying the dual notions of substance and of subsistence. Given this confusion, Christian theologians subsequently fixed the standard usage by affirming three subsistences in one divine substance. The Greek term prosopon, and the Latin word persona, raised similar problems. Prosopon was used of a self-conscious agent, despite the fact that it also properly denoted a face or outward aspect and thusly served the Sabellian modalists just as readily as non-modalists.

In its primary meaning the Latin word persona referred to the mask worn by an actor, and only secondarily to an actor's essential character or role. So for that reason persona, too, was serviceable to modalism. Something of the same ambiguity attached to the Greek term homoousios meaning "sameness of substance". That said, the word left unsure whether that sameness is specific or numeric, and its use provoked accusations of tri-theism while it also promoted monotheism. The Nicene Council stipulated the sense these and other terms were to bear in Christian theology. The Nicene Creed succinctly expresses the orthodox doctrine:

(1) one God;
(2) three persons;
(3) the Son begotten (not made) of the essence of the Father;
(4) the Son consubstantial with the Father;
(5) the Son very God of very God;
(6) the eternity of the Son.

Later, the Athanasian Creed affirms:

(1) the unity of God;
(2) the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit;
(3) the unity of the divine substance;
(4) the equal divinity, glory, and majesty of the persons;
(5) the uncreatedness, infinity, eternity, omnipotence of each of the persons;
(6) the begottenness of the Son from the Father alone, but not made or created;
(7) the procession of the Holy Spirit, but not creation or begottenness;
(8) the coeternality and coequality of the three persons.

Yep. I'm initimately familiar with every nuance of all of the above. That STILL doesn't mean there are three hypostases. There aren't. And all the mumbo jumbo in the world from Calvin and ANY of the early Fathers means nothing in contrast to scripture itself.

Despite the claims of open theists and others, New Testament vocabulary and concepts are not grounded in a Hellenistic milieu but in an Old Testament and Hebrew environment (e.g., Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion). These doctrines of the Trinity organize the teaching and language of the New Testament in a comprehensively consistent way.

I'm not an Open Theist. Process Theology is an abomination to the true sovereinty of God.

Indeed, to understand the New Testament doctrine of God in any other framework oversimplifies the biblical data, impoverishes the scriptural revelation, and leads to inadequate and heretical views of the one true and living God.

Blah, blah. What a crock. The DyoHypoTrin doctrine is NOT the NT doctrine of God. Close, but no cigar. God is monohypostatic. God created eternity. The processions of the Logos and the Pneuma were ex- and ek-, not "internal".

While revelation supplies hints for solving philosophical difficulties, it does not provide a fully developed metaphysical system to which we can accord revelational status. Christians must therefore avoid claiming supernatural or unique authority for one or another interpretation that seems to resolve the problem of persons and essence in the Trinity.

LOL. Really? Then you and your peers need to stop doing so with your adamant cataphatic assertions of a DyoHypoTrin God.

Even regenerate believers are vulnerable to false inference from revelation, especially since not all philosophical alternatives may be apparent to us.

I notice you apply this only to others. You and the vast majority of blind indoctrinates to overwhelming inference for a DyoHypoTrin doctrine could NEVER be horn-swaggled by your own contrived semantics.:dunce:

There is little doubt that the formula “one essence, three persons” creates problems,

Wow. And yet you adhere to it adamantly.

but any alternative formulation only multiplies the difficulties.

Nope. I've retained every vital sub-tenet of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine while painstakingly incorporating the corrections for the errors. All the while also reconciling all other views of Theology Proper to the truth.

Of course you would. :AMR:

LOL. When you presumed I hadn't researched the Gnostic views, you insisted I had no idea what they taught. Now you want to insist I'm a Gnostic because I HAVE studied their schools of thought to avoid such heresies.

Typical playing both ends against the middle by yet another entitled and condescending DyoHypoTrin.

As the full context of the lifted quote indicated, I asked because your facility with some of the terminology suggests a lack of maturity in the domain.

Nope.

One need not be a seminary graduate to come to great knowledge of theology proper, but it certainly will not hurt anyone who is so educated. Your personal disdain for these men of education who "cluelessly spew" this or that which you disagree with speaks volumes about your intellectual maturity.

It's what they do. They're all DyoHypoTrins who disdain all other views.

Beam. Eye. Remove it. Just sayin'.

Back atcha, "Mr. Religion".

Letham? Bray? Shedd? Turretin? Reymond? Berkhof? Hoeksema? R. Muller? Qwen? Torrance? St. Cyril? Basil? C. Henry? G. Clark? Van Til? Feinberg? Frame?

All the above, and others. Why? They all ultimately present the same paradoxes of the DyoHypoTrin view. Your God couldn't and didn't create ALL. And your Son is the Logos in title only; never having been the actual and literal Logos of God. Eternally UNfathered and UNbegotten.

I've even spent much time examining the various Social and Anti-Social variants of the Trinity doctrine.

It has become almost a shibboleth of sorts in my experience that when I encounter someone with very peculiar views invariably the person has great disdain for standing on the shoulders of those that have come before them, self-righteously hiding behind "just me and my Bible".

On the contrary, I stand very much upon the shoulders of all the ANFs and ECFs. Without having read them extensively, I wouldn't have isolated the incompleteness and few errors of their predominantly accurate and copious work. As much as I disdain their aborted effort, I couldn't and wouldn't have considered many things they presented and sorted through. So I'm quite thankful for those invaluable and irreplaceable contributions to the majority truth of what became Creedal O/orthodoxy.

As for modern sectarian Seminarians? Not so much.

It is as if these persons assume no one before them was indwelt by the same illuminating Holy Spirit than they think they now possess.

Nope. But that doesn't mean they searched for complete objective truth beyond pre-determined boundaries.

Such chronological snobbery is bewildering.

It might be if I hadn't so arduously retained all the contributing sub-tenets provided BY all those who came before.

You meet all the signs of this observation of mine.

I don't care what observations or signs you have. You're a DyoHypoTrin Calvinist. That garners no respect from me. Quite the inverse.

I have asked you plainly to tell me who among all the reading you claim to have done comes closes to resonating with your own views.

To a great extent, many. NONE have ever fully considered the true transcendence of God, created eternity, the Rhema, and the ex-/ek- processions of the Logos/Pneuma. I follow them AS they follow Christ, and no further.

I have not asked you who agrees with you fully, for I already know that answer. I only want to know who you hold in some modicum of respect and have learned from. Anyone?

Oddly enough, I hold Tertullian in high regard in many ways. I have enjoyed all my reading of the ANFs and ECFs; gleaning much from all of them in aggregate. Most of them were brilliantly insightful. I have great respect for the Cappadocians, and especially Athanasius; but I don't concur with their final formulation because of their omissions. The rest was poignant and inspiring.

Few moderns get my attention. They're all regurging from the same fallacious foundation; and with entitled arrogant presumption.

What do you think "eternity" really means? In detail, if you will.

That would take a minute. I'd be glad to do that in another post.

I think it'd be more interesting for YOU to answer that question.

Also, who do you view as a good source of discussion on the topic?

On what topic? Eternity? Nobody I've encountered is a good source of discussion on the topic. Everyone presumes the same things. Eternity is somehow UNcreated and the "realm of God". The Open Theists in particular have done egregious damage to the already-battered semantics of aidios and aionios with all their durative nonsense and a non-multi-omni God that suits their human lowliness of thought.

Examine yourself.

I have and do. Likewise.

One need only casually scan your missives here and elsewhere to see evidence to the contrary. No, sir, you have held yourself forth a some sort of oracle, sounding the alarm to the faithful of purported grievous error placing their mortal and eternal destinies at peril,

Nope. I include others within the potential boundaries of salvific faith that you leave adamantly apart from the faith. I think the rampant Triadism possibly more egregious than Sabellianism for sure.

a corrector of one-hundred percent of true Christians

Nope. You overestimate yourself and your peers.

who vehemently disagree with your peculiar views.

Yeah. The ones who regurgitate multiple "persons" that were derived from manufacture extra-biblical hypostases; and who represent an impotent and immanent God with an UNcreated eternity.

See above.

How do you think you have managed to pull this off?

By reading the text and exhaustively praying and searching for the truth in the original languages to correct the multiple hypostases and the created eternity with "internal" processions of the Logos and the Pneuma. Simple, but not easy.

Your hand-waving of "two-fold, singular hypostasis" is a nice attempt to skirt heresy,

Nope. Qualitatively distinct, but still only one hypostasis... as per scripture.

but it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

LOL. The wishful thinking is YOUR multiple hypostases that are extra-biblical and your UNcreated eternity.

You have cobbled some words together and left them with no scaffolding such that they could bear scrutiny.

So it seems to indoctrinated DyoHypoTrins who portray an UNcreated eternity and a God constrained by/in it.

These slight of hand tricks are liberally seasoned in what you have written here and elsewhere. Do you have something more substantial that I could review?

Why would you want the bulk of my writings? You can't even see that scripture only gives us one hypostasis for God.

A pdf of a few chapters of your complete treatment of this particular issue?

I'll consider it, depending.

Well I will ignore the obvious weakness of this operose statement, as believers are regularly met by the heretic with his "Show me where this word is used in Scripture".

I'm not saying "show me where this word is used in Scripture". I'm indicating it's used and it's singular, which is a fact. Your fallacious doctrine has multiplied it. It has nothing to do with whether hypostasis is in scripture or not. It IS. And it's singular for God.

Again, you assume much of me than you could not possibly know. It is another one of those odd behaviors of the peculiar I spoke about above (see shibboleth). Persons that do not even know me immediately assume I am stumbling around in the darkness about that which I speak. Odd that is.

I return it to you, since it's your obvious condescension to others. Perhaps you shouldn't underestimate me and overestimate yourself.

What direct Sola Scriptura evidence do you have that God is three hypostases?

Why is it that being more irenic escapes you as a means of achieving your ends? Why do you feel this topic does not warrant a more reverent approach, especially considering the danger of creating intellectual idols of exactly who God is and then going off and worshipping them at our peril?

Because I've had to respond to DyoHypoTrins for over a decade on the topic. You have no idea how insufferable and arrogant most are, regardless of their knowledge of their own doctrine or not.

Yes, yes. It was all a two-thousand year conspiracy of the church and you are on the scene to sound the alarm.

No. There was no conspiracy whatsoever among men. It was the earnest development of ANF and ECF minds to counter every possible apophatic and cataphatic with the best cataphatic they could come up with. They missed something; and due to the inability to ever revisit something formulated and ratified, there was no turning back. The majority is correct. You forget my afffirmations to that affect.

This mendacity of yours will be your undoing, sir.

On the contrary, it has been my "doing". I've corrected the DyoHypoTrin errors, even if you never see that objective truth in your subjective bias.

Ah, now we come to it. I am a heretic. You are not. Who knew?

Yes. You portray an immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create ALL; contained and constrained by an UNcreated realm of existence rather than being Self-existent.

And yes, I will stipulate to you

In futility.

for it is my time at issue here

Mine, too. I know no one else is of any consideration since you hold yourself in such high esteem.

and if you genuinely want to vett your peculiar views you will want to invest a wee bit of yourself.

I didn't come here to vett my views. I came here to deconstruct the fallacy of God as three hypostases to those who condescend to others as devoid of salvific faith.

The Oracle speaks. Sigh.

Yeah. The bazillion DyoHypoTrin Oracles that are functional Triadists.

Lastly,

Spoiler

From the immediate above it is clear you are not familiar with the historical treatment of the Trinity.

Total bovine scatology. I'm more familiar with the minutiae of the Trinity and its formulation than possible anyone who's ever lived.

You appear to have some superficial understanding that probably has been gleaned from discussion sites, blogs, and excerpts by others in papers, etc. I think this is the cause for your confusion.

That's just funny. I've spent a decade studying every vestige of whatever has been written through the ages on the topic.

Your concern that we get things right is admirable, but your wholesale denunciation of your detractors is evidence of your lack of solid education of yourself on the topic.

Hilarious.

I note from the above you refute the Trinity in any form.

Since that time, I've been pressed for a "label". Monohypostastic Trinitarian fits well. So in context, my above comment would be in regards to any DyoHypoTrin form.

What remains then for you? Non-Trinitarianism?

No. Monohypostatic Trinitarian is fine. I'd previously postulated Monotarian or Merismos Monotheist, but neither was very clear.

You own, very special, solecism? Can you state your view?

I have. You must not have read my posts in this thread.

AMR[/QUOTE]

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm more familiar with the minutiae of the Trinity and its formulation than possible anyone who's ever lived.

Well, I am not worthy. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Lon]

There aren't any hypostases directly referred to in John 1:1; and only the Logos and God are mentioned. Again, you're attempting inference based on a concept from your indoctrination and ideology over theology.

So... You've presumed the Logos is the Son and that there is no way in which the Son was EVER the literal Logos, leaving Logos as merely a title FOR the Son. The DyoHypoTrin Son was never the Logos.

Okay, let me be blunt: I've always understood John to use Logos as Jesus and think anything else foolish and inane. You can try and prove otherwise but it has always been incredibly clear to me and I find all other explanations to date unworthy of anybody. There is a reason, besides a chopping block, that this doctrine has been triune for centuries. Frankly, the shoe looks very much on the opposing foot for importing and not even eisegesis. It is a load of horrible Greek and English. Like third grade horrible. I know that's blunt. I just read another's 'no definite' article thread concerning John 1:1.

There is no Holy Spirit referenced in John 1:1, and nothing in all of the text tells us there are multiple hypostases for God. The only place one can go to is Hebrews 1:3. Period.

Honestly? It looks like you are playing obtuse to me. You don't need individual verses that are not inspired divisions anyway. You need the Gospel of John. Such is clearly expressed in the whole of the book. I'll worry about that portion of conversation when we come to it. We are still just talking about John chapter 1.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, I am not worthy. :AMR:

AMR

Fair enough. You presumed such of me just because of your esteem for yourself and your views. I'm accustomed to being painted as arrogant by those who actually are while condescending to me.

My epignosis and oida don't puff up. It's the DyoHypoTrin gnosis that puffs up. That's always a good difference to learn, but most don't/won't.

The most telling thing you posted was in one of your above post's spoilers, I believe. The formulation of one essence (substance) in three substances (subsistences) was admitedly insufficient or problematic, or whatever the semantics were; but the insistence was that any reformulation was even more problematic.

Too bad DyoHypoTrins couldn't/can't conceive the "highness" of the Most High in their minds and yet ascribe everything about Him as a paradox unto itself. God's thoughts and ways are higher than yours. Yet you presume that you have captured the absolute truth of God and His constitution in your Theology Proper that denies God is Self-existent AND that He created ALL.

God created eternity, and inhabiteth it by His Logos and His Pneuma when/as He did.
The processions of the Logos and the Pneuma were ex-/ek-, which is NOT "internal".

Your God didn't create ALL; eternity is also UNcreated for you.
Your God wasn't/isn't Self-existent; He is contained by the existence of an UNcreated eternity.
Your DyoHypoTrin Son wasn't ever the literal and actual Logos; it's only a title.

Pretty much all the rest is correct and has been retained in the MonoHypoTrin position. That was the entire purpose of reformulation. To include every sub-tenet in the whole of O/orthodoxy while avoiding every pitfall of every other declared heresy.

But continue to underestimate others and overestimate yourself and a doctrine that missed the foundational truth of a truly transcendent God who created ALL, including eternity.

Maybe go read Isaiah 57:15, among others.

NONE are worthy. But some of us have the worthiness of the blood of Christ and the resulting renewed mind to try every spirit, including heterodox O/orthodoxy.