Thank you for proving what I said: You're an idiotNo, that would be the Papalists and Mariologists, etc. LOL. Go rub some beads and chant a rote prayerless incantation or something.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
What you posit isn't worth any more! (Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.) LOL.
Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Bang. Bang. Bang.
Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop. Clip-clop.
Amish Drive-By.
(Too bad you're not at least Amish.)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Thank you for proving the inverse. LOL.
Cross Reference
New member
Yeah, I know. Perhaps your willful ignorance would be more excusable.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You crafty little adversary of truth, you.:rotfl:
Cross Reference
New member
Truth? If you were of it, your illusions would be revealed to you. You need to wake up.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You're quite the influential and persuasive apologist and exegete.
(Not really. Just another Triadist posing as a DyoHypoTrin because of conceptual ideology. You should at least be what you profess to be, even if you're wrong either way.)
Ideologogue.
Cross Reference
New member
:drum:
Psuche, you're just horsing around aren't you? But it's pretty funny.
:thumb:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
:drum:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is pure foolishness for an orthodox Trinitarian to allow any compromise from their confessions and creeds, which summarize their biblical beliefs. Christians should never compromise on the scriptural revelations of Triune God.
Hopefully, you are not demeaning belief in this truth. ???
Correct. And they do so for good reasons . . .
Unfortunately, also correct. But you prove to be especially hostile to the Trinitarians who have chosen to engage in discussion with you, who DO KNOW their own historical Trinitarian doctrines, creeds, and confessions.
Trinitarian Christians have the responsibility to protect their God-given doctrines from any skeptic, unbeliever, false teacher, and/or charlatans who might creep into their midst, and attempt to contradict or diminish the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Each and every anti-Trinitarian, of any stripe, eventually ends up proclaiming a false gospel.
One cannot preach the Person and works of Jesus Christ properly without sound understanding and faith in the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Nang
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You're not an O/rthodox Trinitarian. You're a Triadist.
Belief is not inherently truth, such as the confessions and creeds you speak of. And you don't adhere to them yourself.
The Triune God you speak of isn't a revelation. It's a formulation. Of men.
Seriously? Aquire literacy. I was referring to it as the shared central belief of all those I listed. It's the core truth. But your Triadism isn't.
No. And they didn't have any good reasons for murder, exile, and all the rest of the egregious acts, including all the modern hate-mongering condescension.
Including you.
You don't engage in discussion. You've done nothing but spew ad hominem and hurl eptithets from an ivory tower of presumed superiority, both personal and theological. You judge the hearts of men according to salvation.
So don't go all victim-mentality. You're insidiously culpable for your own hostility.
I'm hostile to a false doctrine and pervasive entitled attitude of arrogant judgment, etc. I'm not hostile personally to anyone except in response to their baseless ad hominem as ideologites.
You don't. Maybe better than many, but you don't. You're a Triadist, not an actual Creedal Trinitarian.
Read the opening lines of the Nicene.
They're not. They were formulated by men, and not devoid of political agendas and other fleshly pursuits of power-mongering and all the rest of the carnal trappings.
Murder and exile speak for themselves, among many other behaviors.
You've already done that. Total double standard.
Nope. Some individuals do. But many of your cousins, the DyoHypo Trinitarians do, too. And so do some of you Triadists.
At the very least, it doesn't have to be a Dyohypostatic Trinity. Good thing, since you're just another aloof and arrogant hate-mongering Triadist instead.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The historical creeds and confessions of the N.T. Christian church codify Holy Scripture with the purpose to build up and protect the saints of God from persons such as yourself.
You deny these summaries of the Christian faith, and by doing so, prove to be an enemy of faithful believers.
You and your words do not belong on an "Exclusively Christian Forum."
There are other forums where you can spout off, without harm. But being allowed on this forum, lends you some credence in some minds, and I object to your presence and the confusion you desire to spread.
But, so far, my and others' warnings have been ignored by the Administration of TOL.
To the detriment of the Christian faith of members, IMO.
I say so, on the basis of the warnings given to Christians in the Book of Jude 1-25.
Those who deny the revelation of God found in the Holy Scriptures, are not believers.
There is no biblical discussion to be had with you.
I do not engage in discussion with JW's who come to my door, either.
For they, like you, have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, but deliberately reject it in order to follow a strange gospel that does not accord with the Word of God.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Exactly. Like Holy Scripture needs to be codified by men and disanull inerrant inspiration while giving us "another law" of men's codification.
That about sums it up.
And yet there's nobody to protect the saints from persons such as YOURself and your Triadist peers, along with your cousins the actual Creedal Trinitarians.
I scrutinize them and retain what is scriptural, which is a majority. All you can do is spew your drivelous judgment of others according to man's RE-codification of scripture as "another law".
You've supplanted grace and faith with creeds you don't even uphold.
That's not for you to judge, any more than men's hearts. Triadist.
You object to anyone and everyone outside your perview of codification to adapt scripture to your false doctrines.
They're probably much wiser and more prudent than you. You'd ban every non-DyoHypoTrin if you could. But as a Triadist, you'd be included in your own ban.
You guys have been a detriment to the Christian faith of many. I was lost as a DyoHypoTrin.
Who cares why you justify spewing your judgment of other mens' hearts according to your Triadist perversion of the Creedal Trinity that is in error.
Good thing I don't. You're just another pathetic hate-mongering ideologist.
Correct. You can't have a biblical discussion with anyone. All you can do is declare and demand and judge and anatematize. Too bad murder isn't legal or moral. You could just rid the world of whoever opposes your false doctrine.
And it's amazing how often you address me. Why not just ignore us of those you consider reprobates? You're not the doctrine police, Triadist.
I do. I destroy their doctrine and they either leave upset or are weaping over the true Gospel that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh.
I don't care who you talk to at your door. You're falsely pious and egomaniacal.
How sadly hilarious that all you have is your indoctrination and ideology over theology.
Your false three-souled god is STILL impotent.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In your April 2013 thread you started out with the right irenic spirit, frequently noting how you were adverse to caviling against those that disagree with your views. It did not take long before you degenerated into vitriol therein, and in this thread. You also made a big to-do about posting your exegesis supporting your views only to abandon your promises behind a shallow excuse of (1) you were unable to login for a few months afterwards, and (2) "no one is worthy" to understand your position. That is disappointing. Surely in those intervening months from May to October you had more than enough time to complete your promised task, no? :AMR:
Let's sharpen iron together. Lay out the exegesis supporting your views so that we may all be edified.
Have you read Letham's treatment of the historical development of doctrine of the Trinity? Mueller's PRRD aside, this is the best discussion of the topic in print. You claim to be publishing your views sometime in the future. Unless you interact with these two authors, a review of your forthcoming book will be fatally deficient. How about posting a link to some excerpted chapters from your book? I can promise you that the material will get a proper review, including a few well-known colleagues of mine within academia. If you worry about security of your work, send something to me that you would like created as a pdf and I will gladly add the necessary security protections: amr AT askmrreligion DOT com
That way you may, as you claimed you desired in your April thread here at TOL, improve your argumentation from discussion from those who consider themselves informed about the topic, albeit not as informed as you frequently claim to be. Just sayin'.
As things stand now, I think we have exhaused the discussion in its current polemic state and consider further discussion an inappropriate use of the time God grants us. Let's not be poor stewards of said time.
Your posts are populated with odd use of caps, slashes, parentheses, breaking up words that obviously mean something to you but pass over the heads of the reader. How about coming back to earth a wee bit and speaking more plainly for us hoi polloi? You may find that we are not the rubes you make us out to be if you will only be more irenic in your approach.
One final suggested corrective. I get that a certain amount pf precision is necessary for the topic at hand, indeed, I regularly insist upon the same. But if you are unable to explain your position such that the brethren in the pews can grasp your exhortations, you have failed miserably. This hints to me there is mist in the pulpit, so how can you not expect fog in the pew?
Your oft-repeated "a hour or so with a whiteboard" to make it all clear is not holding water. If you really think this is essential, then I, and perhaps others, look forward to a YouTube whiteboard presentation and will give it my fullest attention. If that is not possible (why?) then I can arrange a
join.me session using my account and give you control so that you can use your own computer to educate us all. Barring that, just create a slideshow of your whiteboard session and share it via one of the many services, e.g., Google Docs.
You have an opportunity here to rehabilitate yourself. It is up to you to avail yourself of it. If you do not, I have exhaused my willingness to futher engage you at the level this discussion has become.
AMR
PPS: AMR is correct in that most of us do not understand your ramblings, so a good teacher you are not.
Do you attend a church now that SBC does not live up to your standards?
Thx for trying to be responsive. It was appreciated.
Tell us how you interpret Jn. 1:1 in simple terms that would lead to your mono vs dyh view.
e.g. significance of imperfect 'was'; who or what the Word/Logos is; significance of with/'pros'; significance of anarthrous construction in Jn. 1:1c.
I know how I would exegete this for an Arian JW. I would you exegete it for them and for traditional trinitarians or modalists?
Do you attend a church now that SBC does not live up to your standards?
Thx for trying to be responsive. It was appreciated.
Tell us how you interpret Jn. 1:1 in simple terms that would lead to your mono vs dyh view.
e.g. significance of imperfect 'was'; who or what the Word/Logos is; significance of with/'pros'; significance of anarthrous construction in Jn. 1:1c.
I know how I would exegete this for an Arian JW. I would you exegete it for them and for traditional trinitarians or modalists?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I did. It always degenerates quickly with the entitlement and unspeakably egomaniacal condescending obfuscation from DyoHypoTrins; most of whom are functional Triadists. I've endured so much of it, I'm a quick trigger. I've prayerfully worked on that. It often only takes one Apple7 to turn my responses sour.
You've never been a non-DyoHypoTrin having to deal with the vast majority of your peers. It's an insurmountable task. You have no idea.
I thought I was banned. Didn't know why I couldn't get back online. I initially thought it was because of my thread. Still don't know why I couldn't access the forum.
In the meantime, I had someone pirate a chunk of my material from another site and promote it as his own. He was attempting to use my original exegesis to "reform" Modalism.
Since then, I've mostly stuck to an apophatic relative to deconstructing the DyoHypoTrinity. To anyone honest enough to be able to examine the inerrant inspired text, it's not difficult to see the fabrication of the other two hypostases. But O/ortho Trinity is an ideology more than it is theology for most. And Triadist is rampant, conceptually overtaking the true Creedal doctrine.
It's not that at all. Few can divest themselves of bias, and Trinity is more of a worldview than a doctrine. Most just caricature everything to their own frames of reference and can't process anything beyond certain points.
Few are searching for truth, thinking they've already found it. Mystery and tenure are the excuses and evasion points for DHTs.
In my many years of discource, I've only encountered two DyoHypoTrins who could admit their doctrine was built upon inference and the superimposition of two additional hypostases that are nowhere represented in scripture.
Where's the honesty? I admit anything I don't know. I can recognize any points of contention that are raised about whatever my views are, if they're valid without misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
In fact, I couldn't have reformulated Theology Proper without the ANFs and ECFs and later contributors, along with the many others I've personally had convos with to challenge subtleties along the way. I had to be sharpened all along the way to get to where I am today, and it will continue. But most contribute nothing whatsoever in conversations.
I chose not to do so when I was able to log back in after many months. I might reconsider, depending on how authentic your entreaty is.
How genuine is this? How open and neutral are you capable of being? I've found it to be an exercise in futility with those at your "level".
I read some of whatsit Drake's stuff you linked. Though I don't agree with his position at all, I do share some of his queries and criticisms explicitly. From what I read, he's closer to the very early Ante-Nicene beliefs than the eventual Romanized finality.
What you and most others don't seem to realize is that I've exhaustively retained every sub-tenet of O/orthodoxy while correcting the three areas of error. Nobody can admit the dialectic of men isn't the didactic of God; and the formulation of Theology Proper doesn't have the same inerrancy of inspired scripture at all.
No. I don't read many modern treatments of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. It's most often redundant or even more erroneous extrapolation than authentic Cappadocian Trinity formulation.
Why? I'm not saying I won't; but why? There aren't three hypostases for God in scripture; and few will ever address that, regardless how I hammer it.
Again, where's the honesty and transparency? Why can't someone ONCE say, "In Hebrews 1:3, the express image OF a hypostasis seems to indicate enough distinction of reality to merit us assigning an unmentioned additional hypostasis AS that express image. And if the Son is enough of a distinct reality to warrant positing an additional hypostasis, then the Holy Spirit is, too. So we infer three hypostases."
Calvin did. He certainly could be that forthright. Then it comes down to a priority of hermeneutics for the most valid exposition. Explicit trumps implicit. It's a simple scalable means of measuring the deductive.
The problem is, the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, not another hypostasis. And the Incarnate Logos is referred to as a prosopon. Those are much more explicit than any of the implicity of multiple hypostases.
And the alternate widespread usage of Hebrews 1:3 for the Hypostatic Union disanulls the other two hypostases.
There are several key areas of other inference that are also self-refuting, but few DyoHypoTrins are objective enough to see any of this.
I'll consider it. I'm not sure that's the best format.
I would greatly value a synergy of mutual effort with a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian with much education and insight. You come as close as any I've met in some time, but I'm not really sure you're capable of neutrality and lack of bias.
You initially thinking me to be a Pantheist and Gnostic doesn't bode well, along with your comments when I dared comment that most think hades is the lake of fire.
Okay. I doubt the unbridled mouths of your peers with be any different. It's nearly impossible to have amicable and productive conversation on a forum with DyoHypoTrins. You can't relate.
I've tried many times, and with others that have similar credentials to yours.
Yes, and there's a reason for that. I can't compensate for others' ideology and cognitive dissonance.
I'd love to be more amicable, just as I indicated in my old thread. It turns sour with one yammering, taunting, anathematizing DHT (actually, Triadist) that won't stop with epithet-hurling, etc.
I've all but given up on amiable synergy with DyoHypoTrins. Every time there's been hope for such, it gets a quick flush and I go back to the easy attack of DHT paradoxes.
One final suggested corrective. I get that a certain amount pf precision is necessary for the topic at hand, indeed, I regularly insist upon the same. But if you are unable to explain your position such that the brethren in the pews can grasp your exhortations, you have failed miserably. This hints to me there is mist in the pulpit, so how can you not expect fog in the pew?
I have not trouble doing it live, especially verbally and with illustrations. It's like trying to tell a two-dimensional stick man about real three-dimensional people.
Nobody understands eternity. Nobody understands Cosmogony. And no DHT can answer the hard questions about who spoke at creation.
That's why I spend time deconstructing the O/ortho view. Until someone sees the chinks in the armor, they aren't even open that it's wrong. Most refuse to see the chinks, regardless.
This would be the best and easiest means. I've planned to do it, but just haven't. It's by far the best way to present my work.
See? This is provocational. Like DyoHypoTrins are the arbiters of all things. What about you or any of your peers needing to rehabilitate themselves? You likely don't see the voracious judgmentalism of your compatriots and yourself to whatever degree is objectively applicable.
I most likely will. It's been on the agenda for some time. Gotta just get it done.
That's your prerogative. But you don't give much quarter with any sense of neutrality. I've not considered you to exhibit much desire for productive conversation until this post.
You'd dismissed me from the beginning. Has that changed? Do you take me seriously? Or is it just an over-confident ploy because you think you can easily dispell my view?
Last year, I spent over 4 months wading through constant ad hominem in an attempt to converse with a group of DHTs. I graciously acquiesced to the status and tenure of O/ortho Trinity, and agreed that I had the burden of proof both to deconstruct it AND present a valid exegesis for an alternative.
In the end, I stood unscathed with the DyoHypoTrin doctrine in tatters from deconstructing every apologetic presented. But the insistence was that no matter what I presented, they would never yield to being wrong. Their field. Their ball. It didn't matter what the score was. They win by default because they're O/rthodox.
I was disallowed to utilize any apophatic statements. There were more double standards than a second-term president. Ultimately, I walked away because I can't abide such lack of integrity and manipulation. I despise it in me, and I can't tolerate it from others.
I don't know how different it would be with you. You've already skirted the issue by insisting I don't know how the formulators utilized the semantics, which is lame and incorrect.
In the end, I don't so much care what the definition is for hypostasis in a way. There aren't three of them. It's a concept. It's utterly conceptual. That's proven merely by the simple fact that the concept was formulated with different terms for the same things.
Most read a Trinity INTO scripture in every possible passage. That doesn't make for very good neutral conversation.
When I sit down with someone, I always start with Cosmogony. It never fails. Ultimately, they have to answer impossible questions, or they have to just stomp off in a huff.
I attend a large non-denominational (what an oxymoron) Dyohypostatic fellowship of over 3000 with a large pastoral staff. I'm active in leadership and they recognize my calling as Didaskolos. As I recently began teaching the Pastors, they have begun abandoning the Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine. There's really no choice.
Unlike online, I have a relationship with earned trust; so as I begin to lay it all out, they don't have all the taunting superiority that's rampant online with you and your peers.
I'd give anything to have a small group of others to help hash out many details from every possible perspective. The church is very much in need of true reconciliation and correction of that which is incomplete by a few percentage points.
It seems that's the hardest thing for anyone to accept. I'd think it's obvious the church is fractured and fractionalized. Few realize it begins with the "fixing" of Theology Proper. ALL other belief systems could be loaded on the flatbed to the crusher if the truth were presented. It's THAT significant.
If you lived within any reasonable driving distance, I'd come meet with you personally. I don't know how possible that is.
I'll prayerfully consider how to proceed and present my material.
If this is not a divisive, confusing, philosophical hobby horse, what is?
I am Open Theist, not Process Thought. I doubt you understand Open Theism.
If you used your time and energy to do sound apologetics defending and proclaiming the gospel, you might have more eternal impact. As it is, you will unlikely influence many towards truth, discipleship, evangelism.
These academic things have a place, but most people will never 'get it' (probably because it is not true).
I am Open Theist, not Process Thought. I doubt you understand Open Theism.
If you used your time and energy to do sound apologetics defending and proclaiming the gospel, you might have more eternal impact. As it is, you will unlikely influence many towards truth, discipleship, evangelism.
These academic things have a place, but most people will never 'get it' (probably because it is not true).
