ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Drake's rabbit hole is quite deep, so take a few days digging around therein.

AMR

I doubt I'll need that long.

Quick question, since you seem to be one of the few who might give a direct answer.

Do the three hypostases of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine have individuated centers of sentient consciousness? IOW... Do F/S/HS have distinct minds/wills/emotions?

If not, why/how? If so, ruh-roh; I think you know what it means.

 

[godrulz]

Pin him down, AMR....I asked for a two sentence summary of his views and got more pontifications and diatribe, clear as mud.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Absolutely, and according to the Cyrilian formulation.

You say this as if this brings you in accordance with orthodoxy, but Cyril's Divine bleeding into the human version of the communicatio is right there next to monophysitism. Of course you reject Anselm. :AMR:

Yup, you and Drake Shelton will need to start a club.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

An hour with a white board and you'd start getting it. It's truly cognitive dissonance, and I'm not being derisive personally.

What is a triadist?

Individuated centers of sentient consciousness. The original Trinity doctrine included an insistence that the hypostases had no qualities of "personhood", and specifically had no individuated soul functions.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit relate personally (e.g. Jn. 1:1 pros/face to face...WITH).

Pros in the accusative is not confined to "face to face". That's a DyoHypoTrin grammar argument from Wallace that is fallacious.

You're still stuck on three somethings.

It is not a tritheist, so what is your beef?

There's a subtle distinction between Triune, Triad, and Tritheist. Multiple centers of individuated sentient consciousness is multiple beings, though not multiple gods.

Who else holds your view?

As I said, nobody in history; though many have tried.

What influenced you to leave your 28 year position? Author? Writings?

No. I was lost. I was confronted at a crucial time in my life about the Trinity doctrine, and I went to Hebrews and saw that Jesus was God and I repented and believed unto salvation. I didn't understand the difference in any words I could express. But I knew God wasn't three "persons". That's what had kept me lost for most of my life, including my 12 years in church pastoral ministry.

It took years and layers of prayer and fasting and learning biblical languages to gradually dig out what/who God IS and what/who God is NOT. I use a heavy lexical style because it's how I accessed the truth from the biblical languages.

Did you dream this up yourself or can I read your view somewhere else modern or ancient?

It has been a gradual reconciliation of my own for over a decade. I took much from Tertullian, and gleaned a lot from the other ANFs and ECFs. The rest was piecing together Greek semantics and grammar to eliminate and include all points along the way.

I deconstructed every doctrine looking for the reconciliation of them all by one central truth. There can only be one central objective truth.

I can briefly delineate where each of dozens of views depart from the truth and account for them. Each mistakes one central compensation for their omission of created eternity.

It all starts there. God created eternity. He inhabited it when/as He created it. Not one person I've ever found has successfully accounted for that.

In a way, it's Unitarian with an eternal, uncreated, divine Son.

Since I cannot understand you, maybe I can understand someone else.

I have not run across it in theology discussions at any point in 33 years.

That's because I'm a Reconciliationist rather than a schismatic. My entire purpose is to get others to consider the problems of the DyoHypoTrin paradoxes. But it always turns into a rhetoric bloodbath because O/ortho Trins are generally arrogant hate-mongers.

You've chilled out, so it's a bit easier to converse. But with you being an Open Theist (I think), I don't know that your comprehension of aidios and aionios will let you see that God created eternity.

Is it such a minority view that it is unique to you or extremely rare to a few in the happy holy huddle?

I have originated all the details to include the creation of eternity, the EXternal processions of the Logos and Pneuma, and the biblical/lexical meaning of God's Rhema.

Everyone else I know who has challenged the DyoHypoTrin doctrine has migrated to one of the historical opposing camps. They're all wrong, too. That's why I took the path I did in reconciling all of them to the truth.

Throw me a bone instead of long pregnant jelly bean posts with words that are not defined.

As I said, I can essentially be generally described as a Unitarian with a divine, uncreated, eternal Son as Theanthropos.

More accurately (but more difficult to comprehend without misrepresentation), in a specific manner that encompasses transcendence, created heavenly immanence, and created earthly immanence; God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity. God embodied His substance distinct from Himself as the Son. NOT Modalism. God's Word is distinct from Himself when instantiated in created realms of existence. Ontologically divine.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Pin him down, AMR....I asked for a two sentence summary of his views and got more pontifications and diatribe, clear as mud.

That's because you can't/don't/won't understand that God created eternity.

I can essentially be described as a Unitarian with a divine, eternal, uncreated Son as Theanthropos.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You say this as if this brings you in accordance with orthodoxy,

Though I'm a Reconciliationist, I don't care about being "brought into accordance" with heterodox O/orthodoxy. Your false three-souled god is idolatry and band-aided Tritheism.

but Cyril's Divine bleeding into the human version of the communicatio is right there next to monophysitism. Of course you reject Anselm. :AMR:

I reject anything that includes:
An UNcreated eternity as "God's inherent state of being".
Three hypostases.
INternal processions of the Logos and Pneuma.
An erroneous understanding of God's Rhema.

Yup, you and Drake Shelton will need to start a club.

That remains to be seen, but I'm doubtful going in.

Anything's better than an impotent and immanent three-souled god who couldn't and didn't create His own dwelling for all everlasting.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It all starts there. God created eternity. He inhabited it when/as He created it. Not one person I've ever found has successfully accounted for that.

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711), volume 1, starting at his page 91 here:

http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

Then be sure to read all of chapter 4 starting at page 139.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One 'what'; 3 'who'.

It sounds like you have some weird concept of one person, one God, with Father being God's spirit, Son being God's body, and Holy Spirit being God's spirit?!

You are not as clear as you think.

You also seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill with semantics and obfuscation.

If we are in 95% agreement according to you, you are wasting much time and energy on a philosophical point without historical, biblical precedent, like a thinly veiled gnosticism on your part (not Gnosticism, but some kind of elite knowledge the rest of us cannot get).

There is no reason to reject the relationships of Father, Son, Holy Spirit as personally distinct, 3 conscious centers, not 3 gods, one essence, not one person.

I give up...

Actually, it's quite a big deal whether God created eternity or not. Where did the eternal heavenly realm come from if God didn't create it? O/rthodoxy says God is eternity is God.

Heaven is a "where", and it contains "whats/whos" with occuring "whens" and "wheres" within the overal realm of "where".

Do the angels dwell in God's inherent eternal state of being? Do we go to dwell in God's inherent eternal state of being? No, and no.

God INhabited eternity. Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. He's Self-existent, not dependent upon a realm OF existence to exist.

I need a white board. If I illustrated it, you'd get it in an hour.

This truth puts every world religion on the trailer to the dung heap. Instead of fighting for metaphysical crumbs, the Christain faith can obliterate all posers with the truth.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711), volume 1, starting at his page 91 here:

http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

Then be sure to read all of chapter 4 starting at page 139.

AMR

I'll read it. Is this your perceived confirmation, or just some kind of mockery?

Did you see my brief, direct, concise question about the three hypostases and multiple individuated centers of sentient consciousness?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I can essentially be described as a Unitarian with a divine, eternal, uncreated Son as Theanthropos.

Unfortunate that you think so little of the perichoresis.

AMR

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Pin him down, AMR....I asked for a two sentence summary of his views and got more pontifications and diatribe, clear as mud.

You are simply incapable of understanding what he is saying because of a blinding spirit of religion before your eyes.

You do not even know you speak the same as those who tried to find fault with Jesus.

PPS said--

He wasn't "generated". He inherently is God's Logos. He was fathered, as are all true sons. Your false three-souled god has an unfathered son. Illegitimate.

He is correct. You preach the wrong jesus, the same as the RCC.

God calls many to come a know Him, but because of pride they put on religion instead and never come to know Jesus Christ as He really is.

You have never met Jesus to know Him, instead you seized some of His goods for yourself.

LA

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do the three hypostases of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine have individuated centers of sentient consciousness? IOW... Do F/S/HS have distinct minds/wills/emotions?

Unlike yourself, I am quite satisfied by the traditional language used--as long as it is used consistently: ousia and hypostasis, nature and person, essence and substance--they all convey much the same distinction.

As I have pointed out, a divine person is not the same thing as a human individual. This is however, the closest analogy we have in our finite experience. As you will find in aBrakel and elsewhere, whenever we start to conceive of God, we must resort to the via negativa.

Here is the answer to your two questions: So, while we can think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct modes of subsistence or as distinct persons, we must deny the separateness these distinct modes of subsistence will always imply when it comes to the human analogy. We must think of God as one in essence, but we must deny that this unity precludes a diversity of modes of subsistence, again as it would with the human analogy. When speaking of the mind, like will, both are attributes of the nature and are not personal distinctions. God is of one will, and one mind. Each person of the Godhead, if you will, has access to, use of, the entire extend of the mind. Yet, in the ultimate sense, we cannot make these separations for God does not have a mind or a will--God is His mind and His will.

Whenever we think about God our thinking will be partial, discursive, successive, and limited. But, again, as I have stated, the church has been careful to keep these limitations and qualifications in mind and still be precise and definite. Turretin wrote:

But when God is set forth as the object of theology, he is not to be regarded simply as God in himself (for thus he is incomprehensible [akataleptos] to us), but as revealed and as he has been pleased to manifest himself to us in his word, so that divine revelation is the formal relation which comes to be considered in this object. Nor is he to be considered exclusively under the relation of deity (according to the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and many Scholastics after him, for in this manner the knowledge of him could not be saving but deadly to sinners), but as he is our God (i.e., covenanted in Christ as he has revealed himself to us in his word not only as the object of knowledge but also of worship. True religion (which theology teaches) consists of these two things.
​

See more here.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711), volume 1, starting at his page 91 here:

http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html

Then be sure to read all of chapter 4 starting at page 139.

AMR

Okay, I read it.

No created eternity whatsoever. You don't comprehend what the distinction is.

And Chapter 4 is the same thing I've read a bazillion times in some manner or another. It's not like I don't intimately know every vestige of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. I've read EVERY Ante-Nicene writing extant. You continue to underestimate me because I don't agree with your doctrine.

From the beginning of ch4, Brakel interposes person and being, just as many do. And the rest is just de rigeur DyoHypoTrin conceptualization and semantics. Nothing new.

You STILL don't even understand my criticisms of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine because you can't set it aside and approach Theology Proper from a neutral perspective before staking your claim to alleged truth.

And you still haven't addressed the hypostases relative to multiple individuated centers of sentient consciousness. Would you do that, please?

And perhaps you should read my affirmations in this thread.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Unfortunate that you think so little of the perichoresis.

AMR

Perichoresis is merely the Tritheism-preventative band-aid for extra-biblical multiple hypostases. There's no need for perichoresis. The ACTUAL singular two-fold substance (hypostasis) of the singular essence (ousia) is the entirety OF the ousia in the hypostasis.

And what you don't recognize it the following, and listen closely to what I'm specifically saying AND not saying.

The DyoHypoTrin doctrine presents a Son that is only 1/3 OF God. Please note I'm not saying the Son is only 1/3 God (as in, 1/3 Divine). I'm exposing that the Son is only 1/3 OF God. If the Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit); and they're all individuated multiple hypostases; then each is only 1/3 OF God, regardless of perichoresis. Their distinction IS their 1/3-ness.

The DyoHypoTrin Son is not ALL of the Divinity, even with the perichoresis band-aid. There are two other substances/subsistences besides the Son hypostasis. The Son is NOT the entirety of the ousia as substance, even if the entire substance is of the ousia. Perichoresis just places the remaining 2/3 OF God within the Son, but not AS the Son. The Son is not the entirety of God's ousia within Himself as a hypostasis.

AND... What's the difference between the Father hypostasis and the ousia of God (Theos), spoken of interchangably? God IS the Father. God IS the ousia. The Father is only 1/3 OF God, too; as is the Holy Spirit.

God is not constituent parts. Individuated 1/3s OF God AS God is a violation of the Simplicity sub-tenet. That's why it was later abrogated.

Perichoresis doesn't disolve the distinction between the alleged multiple hypostases. Just because they're IN each other, it doesn't mean they ARE each other. This paradoxical dichotomy isn't resolved by perichoresis. The Son is 1/3 OF God.

AND... The DyoHypoTrin doctrine STILL has INternal processions of the Logos and the Pneuma. The former is exerchomai, and the latter is ekporeuomai; both being "out of/out from" by the ex-/ek- prefix. They're NOT eis- or en-.

As Tertullian himself said, "The internal Logos became the external Son." That would have to be external/out from to the ousia from which is proceeded forth (exerchomai); NOT internal/within it. That's where the EOC gets their proclaimed PanEntheism. God isn't a fishbowl for procession and creation.

My MonoHypoTrin view has no such paradoxes. The entire ousia is within the qualitative two-fold hypostasis. And the Logos and the Pneuma proceeded forth/proceedeth out of/out from the ousia when/as God created eternity.

And you don't know what the Rhema is. You think you do, but you don't.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I've read EVERY Ante-Nicene writing extant. You continue to underestimate me because I don't agree with your doctrine.

I specifically asked you of many authors earlier. You waved me off with this same statement. You just implicitly admitted to have not read aBrakel. Confining yourself to the second century is no warrant to the hubris you are demonstrating.

From the beginning of ch4, Brakel interposes person and being, just as many do. And the rest is just de rigeur DyoHypoTrin conceptualization and semantics. Nothing new.

This wave off is indicative of the quick scan you could only possibly give this work in the time between our posts. You have a rigid grid by which you are filtering everything, so you quickly pass over anything hinting at your "de rigeur" filter and miss the subtleties. You missed aBrakel entirely.

You STILL don't even understand my criticisms of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine because you can't set it aside and approach Theology Proper from a neutral perspective before staking your claim to alleged truth.

Quite the opposite. I completely understand you. As your new aquaintance with Drake S. will ultimately show, this is nothing that new.

And you still haven't addressed the hypostases relative to multiple individuated centers of sentient consciousness. Would you do that, please?

Asked and answered but your trigger finger is too itchy.

And perhaps you should read my affirmations in this thread.

I have. It is just that your desperate attempts to paint yourself as within the bounds are unmoving.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Unlike yourself, I am quite satisfied by the traditional language used--as long as it is used consistently: ousia and hypostasis, nature and person, essence and substance--they all convey much the same distinction.

Yes, I know you are. I'm not in the least. It's the quantity of hypostases that's at issue.

As I have pointed out, a divine person is not the same thing as a human individual. This is however, the closest analogy we have in our finite experience. As you will find in aBrakel and elsewhere, whenever we start to conceive of God, we must resort to the via negativa.

Well... I can partially accept that as an excuse and go on.

Here is the answer to your two questions: So, while we can think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct modes of subsistence or as distinct persons, we must deny the separateness these distinct modes of subsistence will always imply when it comes to the human analogy. We must think of God as one in essence, but we must deny that this unity precludes a diversity of modes of subsistence, again as it would with the human analogy. When speaking of the mind, like will, both are attributes of the nature and are not personal distinctions. God is of one will, and one mind. Each person of the Godhead, if you will, has access to, use of, the entire extend of the mind. Yet, in the ultimate sense, we cannot make these separations for God does not have a mind or a will--God is His mind and His will.

Good for you!!!! I will heretofore no longer refer to you as a Triadist at any time. You are an actual Trinitarian, unlike many/most of your peers (including Lon and godrulz, etc.).

I thought it was your PDF that Lon posted, so I must have been mistaken. I'm referring to the PDF on this site that interposes the HS as both a person and a being in the same sentence; and specifically insisting the Holy Spirit had both a distinct mind and will (referencing phronema and boulomai, which are not nous and thelo/thelema).

Kudos to you. Even though it's still error, I don't have nearly the issue with actual Creedal Trinitarians as I do with the vast professing majority who are actually Triadists purporting and percieving the conceptualization that F/S/HS each have individuated centers of sentient consciousness.

Whenever we think about God our thinking will be partial, discursive, successive, and limited. But, again, as I have stated, the church has been careful to keep these limitations and qualifications in mind and still be precise and definite. Turretin wrote:

But when God is set forth as the object of theology, he is not to be regarded simply as God in himself (for thus he is incomprehensible [akataleptos] to us), but as revealed and as he has been pleased to manifest himself to us in his word, so that divine revelation is the formal relation which comes to be considered in this object. Nor is he to be considered exclusively under the relation of deity (according to the opinion of Thomas Aquinas and many Scholastics after him, for in this manner the knowledge of him could not be saving but deadly to sinners), but as he is our God (i.e., covenanted in Christ as he has revealed himself to us in his word not only as the object of knowledge but also of worship. True religion (which theology teaches) consists of these two things.
​

See more here.

AMR

Meh.... Not much there.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

To begin... NO created eternity from aBrakel. That's the foundation.

I specifically asked you of many authors earlier.

And I answered. Tertullian was a fave. I like Athanasius' insightfulness, but not his final conclusions.

You waved me off with this same statement.

Because you waved me off as a doctrinal illiterate, which you seem to always do in aloof and arrogant condescension. You're among many peers of such mindset and behavior.

You just implicitly admitted to have not read aBrakel.

Then let me be explicitly clear... I have not previously read aBrakel. But his content is little different than many/most others. I read every word of ch4.

Confining yourself to the second century is no warrant to the hubris you are demonstrating.

I haven't confined myself to the second century, but my bulk reading was weighted to the period past the Cappadocians to Chalcedon in the mid-5th century.

Why do you disparage those who formulated and developed your own doctrine, preferring eventual Reformers? Because you're Lutheran. I've read (cough, cough... dry) Calvin's Institutes and a number of other Reformers. The problems only got worse from Augustine and the Filioque. Filioque makes provision for spiration of a plausible infinite pleroma of divine persons. And all because of extra-biblical multiple hypostases to begin.

Calvinism and Arminianism are a false dichotomy. They can be reconciled to the central truth. No need to rip the Church apart in schizm for over half a millennia, even if the Indulgences, etc. DID need to be outed.

This wave off is indicative of the quick scan you could only possibly give this work in the time between our posts.

I read every word of ch4.

You have a rigid grid by which you are filtering everything, so you quickly pass over anything hinting at your "de rigeur" filter and miss the subtleties. You missed aBrakel entirely.

Nope. I have divested my bias years ago. aBrakel presents nothing new that I haven't read repeatedly. He's quite thorough in his own way, but still presenting the exact same foundation and concept.

No amount of insisting there are multiple hypostases will make it biblical. There is ONE hypostasis for God. The other two have to be manufactured from shear attempted inference.

And it's all in ignorance of created eternity, presuming eternity is God's being and God's being is eternity. Eternity is a realm of existence. God created it. It's NOT God's being. God is Self-existent. He doesn't need eternity for His inherent existence. Instead, His inherent attribute of eternality is what gives eternity its durative properties. All things upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis, including eternity.

Quite the opposite. I completely understand you.

Nope. You think you do, though.

As your new aquaintance with Drake S. will ultimately show, this is nothing that new.

I'll read him tomorrow evening sometime. Way too late/early now.

Asked and answered but your trigger finger is too itchy.

Crossed posts, not an itchy trigger finger. You'd had a while to answer.

I have. It is just that your desperate attempts to paint yourself as within the bounds are unmoving.

I'm not desperate at all. I don't care what DyoHypoTrins think. I'm closer to Monohypostatic views, and am often erroneously called a Modalist. Most professing Trins are functional Tridaists with a three-souled false god. You and all the actual Creedal Trinitarians still have an impotent and immanent God who couldn't and didn't create His own dwelling place for all everlasting.

The I AM created eternity, it's NOT His being.

Glad you're at least not a Triadist. Real Trinitarians are more rare than you realize, evidently. I'd be content if all professing Trinitarians... were. Instead, they have a firm Triadist concept of God and some would consider YOU to be a Modalist. Crazy.

You still have no biblical support that God is three hypostases.

What's the express image OF a hypostasis? Is it another hypostasis? Or is it a prosopon?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I specifically asked you of many authors earlier. You waved me off with this same statement. You just implicitly admitted to have not read aBrakel. Confining yourself to the second century is no warrant to the hubris you are demonstrating.

This wave off is indicative of the quick scan you could only possibly give this work in the time between our posts. You have a rigid grid by which you are filtering everything, so you quickly pass over anything hinting at your "de rigeur" filter and miss the subtleties. You missed aBrakel entirely.

Quite the opposite. I completely understand you. As your new aquaintance with Drake S. will ultimately show, this is nothing that new.

Asked and answered but your trigger finger is too itchy.

I have. It is just that your desperate attempts to paint yourself as within the bounds are unmoving.

AMR

Is this your PDF?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17512&d=1348466480

 

[Cross Reference]

To begin... NO created eternity from aBrakel. That's the foundation.



And I answered. Tertullian was a fave. I like Athanasius' insightfulness, but not his final conclusions.



Because you waved me off as a doctrinal illiterate, which you seem to always do in aloof and arrogant condescension. You're among many peers of such mindset and behavior.



Then let me be explicitly clear... I have not previously read aBrakel. But his content is little different than many/most others. I read every word of ch4.



I haven't confined myself to the second century, but my bulk reading was weighted to the period past the Cappadocians to Chalcedon in the mid-5th century.

Why do you disparage those who formulated and developed your own doctrine, preferring eventual Reformers? Because you're Lutheran. I've read (cough, cough... dry) Calvin's Institutes and a number of other Reformers. The problems only got worse from Augustine and the Filioque. Filioque makes provision for spiration of a plausible infinite pleroma of divine persons. And all because of extra-biblical multiple hypostases to begin.

Calvinism and Arminianism are a false dichotomy. They can be reconciled to the central truth. No need to rip the Church apart in schizm for over half a millennia, even if the Indulgences, etc. DID need to be outed.



I read every word of ch4.



Nope. I have divested my bias years ago. aBrakel presents nothing new that I haven't read repeatedly. He's quite thorough in his own way, but still presenting the exact same foundation and concept.

No amount of insisting there are multiple hypostases will make it biblical. There is ONE hypostasis for God. The other two have to be manufactured from shear attempted inference.

And it's all in ignorance of created eternity, presuming eternity is God's being and God's being is eternity. Eternity is a realm of existence. God created it. It's NOT God's being. God is Self-existent. He doesn't need eternity for His inherent existence. Instead, His inherent attribute of eternality is what gives eternity its durative properties. All things upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis, including eternity.



Nope. You think you do, though.



I'll read him tomorrow evening sometime. Way too late/early now.



Crossed posts, not an itchy trigger finger. You'd had a while to answer.



I'm not desperate at all. I don't care what DyoHypoTrins think. I'm closer to Monohypostatic views, and am often erroneously called a Modalist. Most professing Trins are functional Tridaists with a three-souled false god. You and all the actual Creedal Trinitarians still have an impotent and immanent God who couldn't and didn't create His own dwelling place for all everlasting.

The I AM created eternity, it's NOT His being.

Glad you're at least not a Triadist. Real Trinitarians are more rare than you realize, evidently. I'd be content if all professing Trinitarians... were. Instead, they have a firm Triadist concept of God and some would consider YOU to be a Modalist. Crazy.

You still have no biblical support that God is three hypostases.

What's the express image OF a hypostasis? Is it another hypostasis? Or is it a prosopon?

Who can understand all that BS?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS, meet Drake:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80931

http://drakeshelton.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/


Here is the end result of where you are headed:
http://drakeshelton.com/2013/07/28/...ormal-renunciation-of-the-christian-religion/

AMR

Stayed up to peruse it.

Ummm... nope, not even close. DS is a Subordinationistic Triadist. Multiple individuated centers of sentient consciousness, and an odd Semi-Semi-Arian sense of economy.

As I said, you have no idea what I espouse or what my criticisms are.

I do share one question he asks... Do you affirm the Nicene Creed, which reads "We believe in one God, the Father..."?

...which leads to the question of "What's the distinction between the Father hypostasis and the ousia of God?

But DS doesn't have a clue about created eternity, either. It's just another compensation like all the opposing historical God-models, including the DyoHypoTrin error.

No historical view is correct, but the earliest Semi-Arian Subordinationist DyoHypoTrinity is probably the closest; edging out Sabellianism.

All because nobody could posit a created eternity.