PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wait... Let's please take this discussion elsewhere. I hadn't realized it was on this dedicated thread.
Apologies AMR and others.
Apologies AMR and others.
ECT PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism
- Thread starter Ask Mr. Religion
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
I will not hijack this thread for further discussion about Open Theism because that would take away from the discussion you are having with AMR on Trinitarianism.
Would you like to discuss Open Theism on a new thread?
Oh, I just saw your other post where you had the same thought.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Have you had time to consider what I've said regarding filiation and spiration?
How can ontological hypostatic movement as procession be interior as opera ad intra?
How would this not violate God's incommunicable attributes? Procession requires "wheres" of from and to. That indicates spatiality and thus linearity.
Violating Immensity also denies Eternity, Infinity, and (likely) Simplicity. And there can be no other ousia than the (alleged) hypostases.
Opera ad intra is interior economy that doesn't result in exteriorization from God. How are filiation and spiration internal?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Well... It seems that there's not much interest in continuing this thread with cogent discussion about the minutiae of whether Opera Ad Intra economy can be sequential within a timeless God; or about anything else.
My appropriate and final contentions are simply these:
The express image (charakter) OF a hypostasis is NOT another individuated hypostasis; but is the exact impress of God's singular hypostasis upon His Logos (sealed by the Holy Spirit) for external procession to be re-presented in created phenomena (heaven and the cosmos) with/by/as an immanent prosopon. The internal eternal Logos proceeded forth as the eternal Son, with whom the Holy Spirit co-inheres.
Opera Ad Intra cannot be economy that includes ontological sequentiality and spatiality within a timeless God. So all the historical treatments of innascibility, paternity/filiation, spiration/procession, and all other related considerations are self-defeating paradoxes which deny God's innate incommunicable attributes of Immensity, Eternity, Infinity, and Simplicity.
There are a number of other related points to demonstrate that no historical theologian has ever been able to convey the true multi-phenomenality of God, though doing lip service to the heavenly realm being created.
As should be obvious by my adherence to historical tenets and my exclusion of all anathemas, I am well within the parameters of the reformed tradition in examining and redetermining a formulaic for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being eternal, uncreated, distinct, non-modal, non-sequential, and ontological divinity.
If understood, though I know that is difficult in this type of venue with no illustrations, mine is the simpler exegetical apologetic. That lends much merit to it being the superior apologetic.
So my contention stands that God is a Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity rather than a Multi-Hypostatic Uni-Phenomenal Trinity.
Ciao.
My appropriate and final contentions are simply these:
The express image (charakter) OF a hypostasis is NOT another individuated hypostasis; but is the exact impress of God's singular hypostasis upon His Logos (sealed by the Holy Spirit) for external procession to be re-presented in created phenomena (heaven and the cosmos) with/by/as an immanent prosopon. The internal eternal Logos proceeded forth as the eternal Son, with whom the Holy Spirit co-inheres.
Opera Ad Intra cannot be economy that includes ontological sequentiality and spatiality within a timeless God. So all the historical treatments of innascibility, paternity/filiation, spiration/procession, and all other related considerations are self-defeating paradoxes which deny God's innate incommunicable attributes of Immensity, Eternity, Infinity, and Simplicity.
There are a number of other related points to demonstrate that no historical theologian has ever been able to convey the true multi-phenomenality of God, though doing lip service to the heavenly realm being created.
As should be obvious by my adherence to historical tenets and my exclusion of all anathemas, I am well within the parameters of the reformed tradition in examining and redetermining a formulaic for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being eternal, uncreated, distinct, non-modal, non-sequential, and ontological divinity.
If understood, though I know that is difficult in this type of venue with no illustrations, mine is the simpler exegetical apologetic. That lends much merit to it being the superior apologetic.
So my contention stands that God is a Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity rather than a Multi-Hypostatic Uni-Phenomenal Trinity.
Ciao.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Then the Patristics shouldn't have all done it. You've hit upon part of the problem indeed.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You reject any notion of circumincession?
A basic statement:
Within the ontological Trinity there are the following properties special to each person: the Father eternally begets the Son; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and from the Son. These properties belong to the eternal and necessary existence of God. They have no beginning, and they will have no end.
The Son of God and the Spirit are, like the Father, of themselves (the technical term which we use to express this truth is autotheos). The Son and the Spirit do not owe their origin or their being to God the Father. Like the Father, they are eternal and uncreated.
The persons of the Godhead eternally indwell one another. The Father indwells the Son and the Spirit. The Son indwells the Father and the Spirit. The Spirit indwells the Father and the Son. The technical term we use to designate this mutual indwelling of the persons of the Godhead is the term circumincession.
The Son of God and the Spirit are, like the Father, of themselves (the technical term which we use to express this truth is autotheos). The Son and the Spirit do not owe their origin or their being to God the Father. Like the Father, they are eternal and uncreated.
The persons of the Godhead eternally indwell one another. The Father indwells the Son and the Spirit. The Son indwells the Father and the Spirit. The Spirit indwells the Father and the Son. The technical term we use to designate this mutual indwelling of the persons of the Godhead is the term circumincession.
What in your opinion is wrong with the statement above?
AMR
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, of course not. I don't deny the interpenetrating perichoretic (circumincession) of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I've affirmed it constantly and consistently. In fact, I've taken issue with another poster who has repeatedly interchanged perichoresis with hypostatic union.
But the circumincession is multi-phenomenal and uni-hypostatic rather than multi-hypostatic and uni-phenomenal. The perichoresis is not an interpenetration of multiple hypostasis and internal filiation/procession, but a circumincession of God's singular multi-phenomenal hypostasis and external filiation/procession.
First, the bolded in order.
Bolded 1: The Filioque clause. It's a Latin innovation as a belated addition. I only accept it as such relative to the Reformed Tradition, though it had its origin much prior to the Reformation. But this is another subset argument for another day, as it is secondary to the determination of Uni-Hypostaticism or Multi-Hypostaticism.
So my primary issue remains the pervasive presumption that a hypostasis is a "person" (faith is a hypostasis, after all), and that God is multiple hypostases (especially if there is ANY hint of multiple centers of eternal sentient volitional consciousness for the alleged multiple hypostases).
Bolded 2: Autotheos. Yes, I'm aware of the term and wholly affirm its usage, but not regarding multiple hypostases. Therefore, "of themselves" is yet another presumption of multiple hypostases in your presented context.
No multiple hypostases have been established, only assumed and declared. Though I eschew Scholasticism, there are a number of terms and assessments that need application and explanation along with addressing autotheos.
The fontal plenitude of the Father must be addressed to establish His innascibility. And this must demonstrate that the Father is somehow distinct from paternity for filiation, to be a hypostasis "fathering" the Son. One of my greatest criticisms of Classic Trinitarianism is the "eternally UNfathered Son" conundrum that gets ignored and/or glossed.
Bolded 3: Your statement must be examined in light of my above concerns. What is meant by the Son and Spirit not having their origin from the Father? The Son and Spirit are eternal and uncreated, having no origin for their existence.
But there must be a "psychological" model as part of the formulaic to account for the Logos and God AS Spirit relative to paternity/filiation and spiration/procession. There are several paradoxes here for multi-hypostaticism that seldom get addressed.
My main criticism overall is the continuous assignment of time/space principles to God, and the sublte and naive denial of His incommunicable attributes when assessing Opera Ad Intra. Patterns have been set that are blindly followed regarding God as "Pure Act".
So... The bottom line is, I arduously affirm the eternal circumincession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; just not as multiple hypostases.
God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Prior to the ensuing blitzkrieg of controversy and formulation, this was the simple understanding and expression of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God, His (literal) Logos, and His (set apart/hagios) Spirit.
Multiple hypostases violates God's Uni-Hypostatic Self-Conscious Self-Existence, and denies His multi-phenomenality; thus corrupting His incommunicable attributes and rendering Him a paradox of human reasoning to make God as a triplicate in man's own image as "persons".
God is innately timeless and non-spatial. No ascription of internal time or space is valid for Opera Ad Intra.
The discussion is there, not on perichoresis/circumcession (which I affirm). Innascibility/Fontal plenitude, Paternity/Filiation, Spiration/Procession, and Opera Ad Intra/Opera Ad Extra.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I saw that post, Bro. Arsenios. You were attempting to tell me that every last one of the Patristics agreed on every last thing of theology and practice.
Even if one dismisses the copious amount of anathematizing and exiling and ostracizing of any dissenters, what remains is still not utterly homogenous between all leaders of all eras.
Even amongst the Capadocians, Basil is considered preeminent in some sense; so somebody was introducing and innovating. Otherwise, nothing new would have ever been discovered or postulated and introduced.
Even if one dismisses the copious amount of anathematizing and exiling and ostracizing of any dissenters, what remains is still not utterly homogenous between all leaders of all eras.
Even amongst the Capadocians, Basil is considered preeminent in some sense; so somebody was introducing and innovating. Otherwise, nothing new would have ever been discovered or postulated and introduced.
Arsenios
Well-known member
Forgive me, I was intruding...
I forgot which thread this is...
Arguments are formulated for heresies...
New truths are not being discovered...
Just new refutations for new heresies...
Truth is Christ - A Mystery indeed...
Augustine is an Orthodox Saint...
He is not a Theologian...
Encounters with God do not give a person some kind of papal infallibility...
Consensus is the key, however long it may take...
Prophesy is subject to prophets...
Theological prophetic insight is subject to the Church Fathers...
This thread is for you and AMR...
Forgive my intrusion...
A.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I, on the other hand, rightly insist that Didactic truth trumps the consensus of Dialectic among men.
Yes, this thread is for AMR and I, but it's almost dormant. Perhaps it will revive a bit.
Arsenios
Well-known member
Then you disagree with Paul when he writes that the spirits of prophets are placed under subjection to prophets...
You seem to have a more narcissistic versionary vision of truth...
Arsenios
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, I don't disagree with Paul. I'm referring to the Dialectic consensus of men that you prefer over God's pure Didactic truth.
No. The narcissism is from those who adhere to joint opinions of men in presumption that God doesn't unfold deeper revelation of Himself through the ages.
Arsenios
Well-known member
Good... Then may I ask you to which prophets is your spirit under subjection??
These men are prophets in the Body of Christ, the Holy Fathers of the Church... They are conciliar, and are all in subjection one to another... Even when they are all wrong save but one, then it does not take a terribly long time for the many to come around [Basil]...
THAT definition of narcissism is laughable, PPS...
And your last presumption, that God didn't get it fully conveyed through Christ, is a colossal fail...
Because...
He told His Apostles that at Pentecost the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL Truth...
Do you disbelieve that ALL?
Arsenios
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
First of all... That's not even what that reference means. But I'm subject to the Fathers that are prophets. I've stood on their shoulders to avoid error and search for what they missed, since Prophets aren't Teachers, and Teachers are the NT equivalent of the OT scribes entrusted with the oracles of God unto salvation.
The extended formulaic process was not accomplished by Prophets.
No. Not even by their individual assessment. Provide an example of Basil referring to himself as such.
Careful... We're not to reverence men. Apart from their callings and tasks for the time, they're no more set apart (hagios) that anyone else or since who is faithful and called and chosen.
Predominantly, yes. But not totally homogenous, no.
Mostly, though forcibly so in some ways.
Or... unless/until there's a schism, with East and West still divided and in varied disagreement. Uh-oh.
It might initially seem so, but only without consideration that birds of a feather flock together. And you seem to think Athanasius, for example, was not a thug like Arius. They both were.
Well... this is a silly conclusion. All was conveyed through Christ. We each may know all that was expressed from God through His Son. Not just a select and early few.
Wow. And yet it took a few more centuries to have a formulaic that has been argued and fought over to this day in minutiae. Remember the Copts and the 1054 Schism?
No. Just your false representation of it.
The amazing thing is... I, with a heart for reconciliation and given that ministry, spent 17 years finding the one thing EVERYONE missed and has brought endless division and anathematization, etc. The vast majority of the rest I agree with.
But if I can't try the spirits and examine scripture and be led of the Spirit to a deeper revelation of presenting the omitted multi-phenomenality of God and His Logos and Spirit; then there's not much need for the Christian faith.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. The Patristics missed ONE thing, but it was monumental and yet subtle.
No Prophet formulated the Classic Trinity. It was Dialectic, and over many years' time; not Didactic and given verbatim to any one or more father/s. The earliest weren't even still alive when the formulaic was finalized.
And the historical formulaic (which is in constant flux for minutiae) denies God's intrinsic non-communicable attributes.
Arsenios
Well-known member
You evaded the question.
"To which prophets is your spirit under subjection??"
Yourf answer is: "To no prophet do I submit. I am the great prophet. I read their words and I stand above them on their shoulders. I am the greatest."
Subjection to the prophets means obedience to the Fathers, which begins with obedience to "those appointed over you", and this you have not done... You would have to lower your self... And this you are not able to do, because of all your years of pain and suffering under mistaken formulaics...
That pain and suffering was a gift to you...
Scorned...
"The extended formulaic process was not accomplished by Prophets."
Theology is not about "extended formulaic processes"...
It is not about words at all - Words are but the elementary level of theological enquiry... They are not theology except as it is presented in the scholia, which is not theology but words ABOUT theology...
Theology is a quest in becoming fully human in union with God...
You are mired in the slime of "extended formulaic processes..."
Even your noesis was formulaic, by your own report...
Won't happen - That would make him a narcissist too...
Paul tells us that the spirits of the prophets are to be subjected to the prophets. I asked you to which prophets is YOUR spirit subject. And you reply: "Careful... We're not to reverence men..."
You seem unable to grasp the difference between a Saint and a heretic...
Union with God is N-O-T a verbal enterprise...
WOW! More formulaic obsession...
The fruit of the Spirit is Peace...
Spirits are tried in one's own soul alone...
They know God...
Back to your formulaics... These are only brought forth for heresies... The Faith and its Theology are whole and complete and intact entirely without them...
Words, words, words...
Arsenios
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It's you who is evading everything I've said; AND it's you who is focused adamantly on formulaic, contending that there MUST be three hypostases. So you don't get to lay those off on me.
Prophets don't need to spend centuries in formulaic. And prophets aren't teachers. Prophecy has never been about Theology Proper, but teaching IS.
Words, words, words. That's all the orthodox formulaic is. I don't call the Patriarics false teachers just because they missed one thing. I just rightly don't call teachers prophets.
I'm not the one stuck on the words of men instead of the words of God. God's didactic is not subject to men's dialectic.
And that's why I embrace the Reformed tradition and have walked away from my strong considerations of Orthodoxy. The Reformers righly divorced the Latins that you still embrace and want to share communion with again soon. The Latins are apostate, just as many protestant sects have become.
To understand the ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God, one must understand that God is a singular hypostasis and in multi-phenomenality.
A prosopon is seen, not a hypoatasis. So none of the Patristics would ever know the difference from alleged encounters. And such tangible experience doesn't define the intangible.
The Son and the Holy Spirit are the very hypostasis of God, filiated and processed (respectively) into the created heaven and cosmos.
There is no internal procession of multiple hypostases within God. That's all a bunch of Latinization and Scholasticism that occurred over many centuries of competing formulaic by alleged "prophets".
If they were prophets, they should have declared by the Spirit all the intricate understanding of God and His Constitution. They didn't because they were teachers learning and prematurely declaring absolutes upon a false foundation of uni-phenomenality.
They projected time and creation upon God without realizing it. You have a God who didn't father His Son, and an eternally UNfathered Son. All the Orthodox presumptions at projecting time and space upon a God who created time and space.
The rest is just your own ad hominem to me as a pejorative because I refuse to believe the lie of multiple hypostases that are functionally considered as distinct beings.
I am well within the Reformed tradition of determining "how" Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct and eternal and uncreated and non-modal and non-sequential and con-substantial and con-essential and ontological deity.
The ONLY answer is God being Uni-Hypostatic and Multi-Phenomenal. It's too bad Basil was only concerned with smaller matters. Now Orthodoxy is fundamentally Basilianity rather than Christianity.
I don't worship or venerate saints. So I surely don't consider the Patristics as prophets when they didn't prophesy Theology Proper. They developed it as teachers, and they missed something.
That verse is not about being subject to the Patristics and their rigid formulaic. It's about hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed as the only means of salvation by faith.
I'm subject to the prophets. In fact, that's the foundation for me understanding the ontological Gospel of Paul.
Your logical fallacy of argument from authority is debunked.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Can you unpack that statement into bite-size pieces?
By multi-phenonenal I mean....
By uni-hypostatic I mean...
By not...internal/filiation I mean...
By singular multi-phenomenal hypostasis I mean...
By external filiation/procession I mean...
AMR
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You two need to stop.
Neither of yuh knows what yer talkin' about.
When Paul said that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets he simply meant that they could control themselves enough to shut up when something came to another who was sitting by.
1 Corinthians 14:30 KJV
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by , let the first hold his peace .
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one *, that all may learn , and all may be comforted .
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
That goes for Amr too, who thinks only the educated get to speak.:kookoo: