Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    I could name examples all day for years. But one quick one would be "simplicity" (hapiotes) in 1Corinthians 11:3. It's an antonym for duplicity, and most assuredly does NOT mean a lack of complexity, as is most often presumed.
    I think you typo'ed the reference...

    You see... we all have our own lexicon in that regard. What you don't see or know is the extent to which I've divested my own to yield to the truth. And it's not an "emptying" like Buddhism; it's the putting off of the old man while putting on Christ. And that's literal and ontological, not figurative. It's hypostatic translation into Christ instead of putting the new wine in old wineskins, which is what virtually everyone is doing.
    1Cor 14:32
    "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

    So the question I must ask is, "To which Prophets have you subjected yourself?"

    In the Orthodox Faith, when a new doctrine is introduced, it is, when troublesome enough, set before an Eumenical Council to which its formulator is subject... There, it is embraced or anathematized... Such as were Paul's doctrines before the Council at Jerusalem under the Patriarch James [Iakovos]...

    Creation is incompatible with God's innate uncreatedness, so there must be an accounting of how He inhabits creation as the Uncreated.
    Why? IF, as you say, and Orthodoxy agrees, creation is utterly other than the Uncreated creator, then indeed how COULD any understanding in words render any accountability whatsoever of either to the other? Certainly God is not accountable to creation... And the accountability of creation to God, while absolute, is only understandable to God, and to us only by revelation of the Mystery of Love, which is always as in a dark looking glass...

    I've explicity indicated that the Son and Holy Spirit are both UNcreated phenomenon AND noumenon.
    Well, if a phenomenon is the appearance of something, and noumenon is the apprehension of that appearance, then we are already into the created realm, and it does not help to merely assert that Son and Holy Spirit are phenomenal and noumenal, which are categories of creation...

    [quote]
    This is what I mean. No matter what extent I go to in expressing whatever, you already have an extensive grid that you can't or won't divest to learn or recognize on certain levels.
    The grid I use is the one that avoids projecting created and fallen human concepts onto the uncreated God...

    I can teach Multi-Phenomenality very explicity, with visual aids.
    Multi-phenomenality is a created term derived by fallen man using his intellect to describe created phenomena which he apprehends sensually or intellectually or noetically...

    Until you fully comprehend the precise distinction between eternity and aeviternity, you will constantly caricature whatever I say to your vast information-based concepts of whatever is already in your mind.
    Timeless and everlasting are well known and used concepts in the historical Church... But one cannot speak of the apophatic timelessness of God as a place called eternity... But one can speak of the created endlessness of time in which creation abides as eternal time... I don't get why you want to call God eternal when "eternal" is conceptually derived from created time understood as unending...

    Except... There was no time until it was created at the divine utterance. There is no "when" for God relative to His pre-creational timelessness.
    This fact requires epistemological agnosticism regarding the nature of God, because ALL human epistemological concepts are derived from creation.

    Conversely, the timelessness and placelessness of God places Him everywhere present, filling all things...

    THIS is exactly what the Patristics missed, as has virtually everyone since (including the Latin Scholastics, culminating in Aquinas).
    I think you are being far too generous to the Latin Scholastics, who are NOT Patristic, but philosophic in their approach to theology...

    God's Logos and Pneuma are eternal uncreated phenomenon and noumenon. The internal Logos proceeded forth as the external Son. The eternal and uncreated Son. The singular hypostasis re- -presented in created phenomenon.
    This understanding would seem to make the Word and the Spirit to be DEVICES of God for the effectuating of creation at your Big Bang understanding of "Instantiation" of creation... It would make them eternal, but not timeless, as Agents of Creation, whether modal [eg multi-phenomenal] or hypostatic, thrust into creation to make it happen...

    We have a simpler way - Creation is FOR the Son - It is HIS inheritance, through man created in His Image...

    Time and space are created. THIS is the eternal uncreated phenomenon and noumenon of God proceeding forth into all created phenomena.
    You just said that CREATED time and space ARE eternal and UNCREATED...

    But having said so, my Brother, you then deny the Mystery by castigating the Fathers for hiding behind it... The intersect of time and timelessness is a Mystery...

    Every 'time'...

    Understanding the interface of timelessness with time is the most difficult thing of all. Yet all Theology Proper and Cosmology doctrines are based on a misunderstanding of that interface, projecting the time from creation upon the uncreated while doing lip-service to not having done so.
    Well, the formulaic you just gave above is self-contradictory... Saying that the created is un-created...

    God is timeless, even in creation. And the Trinity doctrine (and ALL other historical Theology Proper formulaics) began its formulation AFTER the creative act while insisting it was relative to pre-creation.
    Your efforts likewise occur after the creative act... We are apophatic regarding the timelessness of pre-creation... We KNOW God truly in His Uncreated Energies of Creation by Revelation... We do not infer beyond such Grace...

    Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only "look" to be multiple hypostases because the afore-mentioned distinctions have been projected as uni-phenomenal.
    They have been REVEALED as Three Hypostases...

    1Co 14:32
    And the spirits of the prophets
    Are subject to the prophets.


    Arsenios
    Arsenios

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      And this is because you don't fully understand the intended effects of language- and culture-sculpting by the devices of Satan upon mankind through the ages since Babel. Plus... Few have any idea what English words actually mean at any depth, breadth, or height in relation to the Greek (or Hebrew) text.
      This and what preceded and followed in your post is why having a discussion with you turns enervating. I am doing my best to converse, but you make it difficult by implying I do not operate from the same presuppositions you do. If you consider the air you are breathing is so much more rarefied than my own, what hope is there for progress?

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      We live in a despicably dysfunctional low-context modern culture with spiraling lower context every moment in language and every facet of life. Meaning is being syphoned off and replaced with subtlely altered pseudo-meaning.
      I maintain that insisting upon peppering the discussion we are trying to have with various and sundry Greek forms of nouns and verbs is unproductive. One can craft English sentences about Theology Proper that are explanatory of things explained. Doing otherwise becomes word salad more often than not to reader. Try substituting the English explanation of these Greekisms each time you want to use them and see where it leads. That is the method I used when parsing your prior post.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      And while I acquiesced to such, I knew (and still know) you didn't understand what was said. It filtered through your already-well-established-grid.
      Your own "grid" notwithstanding, of course, no?

      Rather than lisping with me, suggest modifications to my words without resorting to Greek words and see how it goes. My goal here is to flesh out what you are saying in English only. I am confident that can be done and you will appreciate it down the road. All the time you spend teaching others that finally see the dawn coming up like thunder may actually be reduced when more plainly used word constructions are employed. You seem to be implying that this is impossible. I disagree.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Both. The context of the statement is centered upon timelessness and time relative to uncreated and created. The core conflict of Theology Proper is the projection of time upon God, even when others presume they're not doing so.

      ...Creation is incompatible with God's innate uncreatedness, so there must be an accounting of how He inhabits creation as the Uncreated.
      How so in the "broad sense"? Do you include the created universe in this sense? You write "there are no aspects of creation ascribable to God", so how is God ascribed to that which He created?

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Whoa here. I've explicity indicated that the Son and Holy Spirit are both UNcreated phenomenon AND noumenon. And if they were created phenomenalities, it would be Arianism/Semi-Arianism, not a form of Sabellianism (or Dynamic Monarchianism).

      ...This is what I mean. No matter what extent I go to in expressing whatever, you already have an extensive grid that you can't or won't divest to learn or recognize on certain levels.
      Your hair-trigger sensitivity to this is showing. Was not my intent. Rather my intent was to seek clarification to avoid the usual tendency for someone to read modalistic notions into your words. I am looking a better construction of "created phenomenalities" being used to represent the Persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit. You see, I am actually trying to aid you here. Assume I am but a reasonably knowledgeable editor of a book you are writing. My task is to great your waxing eloquent and distill it into something consumable by more than a few high priests.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      I can teach Multi-Phenomenality very explicity, with visual aids.

      Until you fully comprehend the precise distinction between eternity and aeviternity, you will constantly caricature whatever I say to your vast information-based concepts of whatever is already in your mind.
      As explained above, no caricature was intended. In effect my comment was along the lines of "How, when using this phrase, do you avoid the charge of the casual reader of modalistic tendencies?" I am really trying to help you out and crisp up what you are saying.

      The vBulletin software here supports posting of images as visual aids. Or just link to them posted at the usual image based web sites where they can be uploaded. I am very interested in seeing them if you think they will help. Save them as pdf files and add them as attachments to your posts. Pdf files must be less than 295Kb in size, so you may have to post multiples of single images if the file sizes for multiple images are larger.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Except... There was no time until it was created at the divine utterance. There is no "when"...

      ...There was no "when" or "where" until the divine utterance to create. Projecting pre-creational "whens" and/or "wheres" is the fallacy I referred to above.
      I am not in disagreement. I hope you know this. I also hope you know that when we speak of the creative acts of God, as in the universe, in our finitude we often resort to time based words, all with the full knowledge that these are but accommodations to our finitude. Think of the typical question by the lay person, "If God has always existed, why did God take so long to create the universe? What was He doing before He created?"

      I think it is possible to provide an answer that does not require first laying so much pipe that the question gets buried in the process.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      The singular hypostasis re- -presented in created phenomenon.
      When you toss out careful constructions as in "re--presented in created..." you cannot just let them stand naked. You need to follow up with something along the lines, "By 're--presented in created' I mean the following...{please complete the sentence}

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Time and space are created. This is the eternal uncreated phenomenon and noumenon of God proceeding forth into all created phenomena.
      In other words, do you mean to say..

      Time and space is the eternal uncreated that which is observed to exist (phenomenon) and knowable by the senses (noumenon) of God proceeding forth into all created existence (phenomena).

      Feel free to suggest better wording of my constructions of the trigger words.

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Understanding the interface of timelessness with time is the most difficult thing of all. Yet all Theology Proper and Cosmology doctrines are based on a misunderstanding of that interface, projecting the time from creation upon the uncreated while doing lip-service to not having done so.
      How do you describe that interface?

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      God is timeless, even in creation. And the Trinity doctrine (and ALL other historical Theology Proper formulaics) began its formulation AFTER the creative act while insisting it was relative to pre-creation.
      Is this not tautological? Of course the formulation came after creation, as there was no one around to formulate the same, not to mention no special revelation (Scripture). Have I misunderstood?

      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      Every seminarian I sit down with for a few hours has the same eventual response... "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! How could everyone have missed this for two millennia?"
      We have been at it for more than a few hours here and about. Time for you to break out those visual aids you say speak louder than words.

      AMR
      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



      Do you confess?
      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
      AMR's Randomata Blog
      Learn Reformed Doctrine
      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
      The best TOL Social Group: here.
      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
      Why?


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        This and what preceded and followed in your post is why having a discussion with you turns enervating.
        But my post was benignly devoid of any pejorative tone. I was not condescending to you in the least. You are an elder, mature in the faith and dedicated to teaching and laying down your life for the body. I honor that, and have deep and sincere regard for you. My comments are the simple statement of fact, not an attack or any form of disrespect to you or your calling in the Body.

        I am doing my best to converse, but you make it difficult by implying I do not operate from the same presuppositions you do.
        But we do not. It isn't innately condescending for me to note the distinct premises from which we think and express as different "grids". I'm actually quite relaxed and conversational, though that may not be readily apparent.

        If you consider the air you are breathing is so much more rarefied than my own, what hope is there for progress?
        What if you're a victim of our shared low-context language and culture (as are all English-thinkers/speakers) and I'm just trying to usefully expose that?

        What if we indeed approach this topic from disparate foundational epistemological understandings; and mine has been divested of innate bias instead of being subject to it?

        What if structural facets of English are the culprit in ways you're not aware of, and you've applied that to the structure of Greek unconsciously because language is the primary tool of the enemy for "installing" his devices (noema) in the hearts and minds of men?

        What if I'm demonstrating true agape, with makrothumeo and chresteuomai; and without zeloo or physioo? What if there's something everyone has missed for the two millennia of struggle over Theology Proper?

        What if everyone is wrong to varying subtle degrees? What if Semi-Sabellians and Sabellians are no more wrong than conventional Trinitarians (especially in modernity)? What if Semi-Arians and Arians are only marignally more wrong than true historical Trinitarians?

        What if the Patristics missed one thing, and the inevitable small cascade of minutiae that would result from such? What if they're very nearly right, but their focus didn't include the periphery necessary to "see" the one thing they missed (and mostly because they were constantly guarding against near-endless onslaughts against the Faith from within and without)?

        What if all the ancients were arguing subtly over the barely wrong question from a shared and flawed foundational premise?

        What if I'm not being insulting and condescending, and instead I've yielded my heart and mind selflessly (for nearly two decades, and without being a hireling) to finding and reconciling such things in adherance TO orthodoxy rather than the apparent challenge from without?

        What if...? What if they missed it and it's never truly been revisited at that fundamental level for fear of reprisal, etc.?

        What if the bath water doesn't need to be thrown out, but a few cups need to be scooped out with unrecognized floating debris? More accurately... what if it's merely the wrong tub instead of a problem with the bath water?

        Are the Patristics infallible? Are the Reformers infallible? Everyone is allowed to postulate and pontificate, as long as they adhere to the multi-hypostatic framework; and there's an almost endless array of such postulates in both "social" and "anti-social" formats.

        All presume a uni-phenomenality and don't recognize it. The historical formulaics all do this as well. Arius and others were fighting over metaphysical crumbs with Athanasius and others, ad infinitum.

        What if they ALL missed the false premise they shared? What if they're all right to a greater degree than opponents would admit? What if Servetus was closer in many ways than any of them, even though he was much too pantheistic/panentheistic in his approach? (But noooooooo... he was burned at the stake by the modern Theocratists. Good thing he contributed so much to fields like Rheology and Chartography before his incineration.)

        (Since this has been so long so far, I'll resume in another post to continue.)

        I maintain that insisting upon peppering the discussion we are trying to have with various and sundry Greek forms of nouns and verbs is unproductive. One can craft English sentences about Theology Proper that are explanatory of things explained. Doing otherwise becomes word salad more often than not to reader. Try substituting the English explanation of these Greekisms each time you want to use them and see where it leads. That is the method I used when parsing your prior post.



        Your own "grid" notwithstanding, of course, no?

        Rather than lisping with me, suggest modifications to my words without resorting to Greek words and see how it goes. My goal here is to flesh out what you are saying in English only. I am confident that can be done and you will appreciate it down the road. All the time you spend teaching others that finally see the dawn coming up like thunder may actually be reduced when more plainly used word constructions are employed. You seem to be implying that this is impossible. I disagree.



        How so in the "broad sense"? Do you include the created universe in this sense? You write "there are no aspects of creation ascribable to God", so how is God ascribed to that which He created?



        Your hair-trigger sensitivity to this is showing. Was not my intent. Rather my intent was to seek clarification to avoid the usual tendency for someone to read modalistic notions into your words. I am looking a better construction of "created phenomenalities" being used to represent the Persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit. You see, I am actually trying to aid you here. Assume I am but a reasonably knowledgeable editor of a book you are writing. My task is to great your waxing eloquent and distill it into something consumable by more than a few high priests.



        As explained above, no caricature was intended. In effect my comment was along the lines of "How, when using this phrase, do you avoid the charge of the casual reader of modalistic tendencies?" I am really trying to help you out and crisp up what you are saying.

        The vBulletin software here supports posting of images as visual aids. Or just link to them posted at the usual image based web sites where they can be uploaded. I am very interested in seeing them if you think they will help. Save them as pdf files and add them as attachments to your posts. Pdf files must be less than 295Kb in size, so you may have to post multiples of single images if the file sizes for multiple images are larger.



        I am not in disagreement. I hope you know this. I also hope you know that when we speak of the creative acts of God, as in the universe, in our finitude we often resort to time based words, all with the full knowledge that these are but accommodations to our finitude. Think of the typical question by the lay person, "If God has always existed, why did God take so long to create the universe? What was He doing before He created?"

        I think it is possible to provide an answer that does not require first laying so much pipe that the question gets buried in the process.



        When you toss out careful constructions as in "re--presented in created..." you cannot just let them stand naked. You need to follow up with something along the lines, "By 're--presented in created' I mean the following...{please complete the sentence}


        In other words, do you mean to say..

        Time and space is the eternal uncreated that which is observed to exist (phenomenon) and knowable by the senses (noumenon) of God proceeding forth into all created existence (phenomena).

        Feel free to suggest better wording of my constructions of the trigger words.



        How do you describe that interface?


        Is this not tautological? Of course the formulation came after creation, as there was no one around to formulate the same, not to mention no special revelation (Scripture). Have I misunderstood?



        We have been at it for more than a few hours here and about. Time for you to break out those visual aids you say speak louder than words.

        AMR
        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
          This and what preceded and followed in your post is why having a discussion with you turns enervating. I am doing my best to converse, but you make it difficult by implying I do not operate from the same presuppositions you do. If you consider the air you are breathing is so much more rarefied than my own, what hope is there for progress?
          See above for my semi-rambling response. LOL.

          I maintain that insisting upon peppering the discussion we are trying to have with various and sundry Greek forms of nouns and verbs is unproductive.
          And I vehemently maintain the contrary. English is the problem; and it didn't even exist in primitive Anglo-Saxon form until long after the primary (and ancillary) languages from which it is derived (and is being perverted constantly in modernity, to boot).

          I'm teaching a short series on agape and what it is/isn't. Not one living human I've ever encountered seems to know what it means to "have" (echo) "love" (agape); much less the succeeding Greek words and their extensive functional meanings from the 1Corinthians 13 passage.

          English skims every definition like skipping rocks across a pond. That's because of its ultra-low-context structure that depends on concept over context and content.

          I "pepper" my expression with "GrEnglish" because nobody knows what hypostasis means. Or agape. Or pistis (which is functionally replaced by elpis). Or charis (especially, and ironically, by the "Charismatics" of various ilks). Or rhema and logos. Or just about any individual Greek term from the inspired text that pillars the Faith and the Body.

          One can craft English sentences about Theology Proper that are explanatory of things explained.
          Not really. And the problem is language-sculpted modern minds that innately conceptualize rather than contentualizing.

          English does not and cannot determine definitions in arrears to be projected upon Greek (or Hebrew; or Latin, for that matter).

          English doesn't do well in word-to-word translation. It requires paragraphs or pages to deal with most significant singular terms in Greek.

          Doing otherwise becomes word salad more often than not to reader.
          Yet in live teaching, this "word salad" is meat for everyone who hears it, because it dispels their English conceptualizations.

          English promotes the death of the letter like no historical language extinct or extant. Yet when foundational and structural corrections are made and understood, its low-context nature can then become the most prolific expression of truth in history.

          Try substituting the English explanation of these Greekisms each time you want to use them and see where it leads.
          I provided a partial listing of lexical references. People don't even know the Oxford or Webster definitions of all the words they use constantly, much less the etymological and translational significance of such meanings from their donor languages.

          This isn't because people are stupid. It's because English language structure isn't predicated preeminently upon intricate word meanings, but upon conceptual results of phases, etc.

          That is the method I used when parsing your prior post.
          Yes, and it didn't really represent what I was saying.

          Your own "grid" notwithstanding, of course, no?
          My "grid" has been divested of English-driven conceptual bias over the last 17 years. There's a pragmatic and significant difference.

          Rather than lisping with me,
          I am not, regardless of such presumption or perception.

          suggest modifications to my words without resorting to Greek words and see how it goes.
          I've done so in the lexical portion so there could be better understanding when I necessarily intermix English and Greek.

          My goal here is to flesh out what you are saying in English only.
          ...which is only possible when exhaustively examining the Greek words that English can only represent with paragraphs and pages.

          For example... echo ("have"). It has extensive depth and breadth of meaning that "have" doesn't and can't express. The same is true of the vast majority of Greek terms.

          Words from languages provide the subjective realization of objective reality. Mess with this and it messes with everything. To think Satan has not intentionally and maliciously jacked-up lanugage is to be ignorant of both his devices AND his agenda.

          Our salvation and redemption is the Logos made flesh as Theanthropos. All creation was instantiated into existence by the word of the Lord (and the breath of His mouth).

          Satan's primary agenda is to mess with language and words to change belief in men's hearts. Faith cometh by hearing, by the rhema. He can intervene in matters of faith at the very foundation by skewing rhema and logos as the instrument of creation. He has to. He has no power of his own; and He IS a lie and the father of it.

          I am confident that can be done and you will appreciate it down the road.
          I already do, but not in the manner you would presume to install. But using one translational English word for every Greek word is the height, depth, and breadth of fallacy.

          To demand hypostasis, for example, must be replaced with a singular English word is inane and insane. The scope of both its meaning and application requires much, much more.

          All the time you spend teaching others that finally see the dawn coming up like thunder may actually be reduced when more plainly used word constructions are employed. You seem to be implying that this is impossible. I disagree.
          This is a false binary, just like most opposing extremes of competing doctrine(s). I gladly take the necessary time to copiously and exhaustively define Greek words in English. Then the inserted Greek words include a built-in lexical breadth every time I use them.

          You simply have no idea how effective this is in changing hearts and lives. English-speakers use words their whole life with ridiculously shallowing meaning and no real understanding. And that's by design and influence by the spirit of antichrist in this cosmos.

          How so in the "broad sense"? Do you include the created universe in this sense? You write "there are no aspects of creation ascribable to God", so how is God ascribed to that which He created?
          I was speaking of projecting time and space, etc. upon God theologically, while doing lip-service to not having done so.

          The entire Arian controversy, for example, was based on a false premise in arguing over "whether there was a TIME when the Son was not", or not. For God, there is no time. So the entire frame for the "argument" was invalid.

          The most common default is projecting creation upon the Uncreated, and that is most commonly related to the gross misperceptions about "eternity/eternal", etc. There is no "eternity past"' for instance.

          Your hair-trigger sensitivity to this is showing. Was not my intent. Rather my intent was to seek clarification to avoid the usual tendency for someone to read modalistic notions into your words.
          Well... I suppose my "hair trigger" comes from novice nominal functional Tritheists (professing to be Trinitarians) constantly referring to me pejoratively as a Modalist; which any kindergarten theologian should readily see that I'm not. Sorry. I'll attempt to be less reactive.

          I am looking a better construction of "created phenomenalities" being used to represent the Persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
          They're not created phenomenalities. The Son and Holy Spirit are each UNcreated phenomenon and noumenon. All else is created phenomena.

          You see, I am actually trying to aid you here.
          I believe that.

          Assume I am but a reasonably knowledgeable editor of a book you are writing. My task is to great your waxing eloquent and distill it into something consumable by more than a few high priests.
          My never-ending quest, hindered by the culture-sculpting of low-context language and the demand for its utilization at the expense of true meaning.

          Again, the lexical portion I posted should help immeasurably.

          As explained above, no caricature was intended.
          I know. I don't for a moment think it was/is intentional rather than in incidental.

          In effect my comment was along the lines of "How, when using this phrase, do you avoid the charge of the casual reader of modalistic tendencies?" I am really trying to help you out and crisp up what you are saying.
          The Modalists (well... some of them; not the Dynamic Monarchians) were trying to represent multi-phenomenality. They missed, and merely substituted manifestations for hypostases. Very bad move.

          Beyond multi-phenomenality (which nobody understands but everyone is compensating for), the distinction is my representation that the Son has a distinct prosopon from the Father's prosopon (even though it is shared with the co-inhering Holy Spirit.

          And this is not merely replacing multiple hypostases with prosopoa.

          The vBulletin software here supports posting of images as visual aids. Or just link to them posted at the usual image based web sites where they can be uploaded. I am very interested in seeing them if you think they will help. Save them as pdf files and add them as attachments to your posts. Pdf files must be less than 295Kb in size, so you may have to post multiples of single images if the file sizes for multiple images are larger.
          I know they willl help; I've been intentionally attempting to convey everything through the written word for several reasons. I may resort to that very soon, but I'd almost rather drive to meet you at a Phoenix coffee shop for a few hours.

          "Live" makes a difference, for whatever reasons.

          I am not in disagreement. I hope you know this.
          I was unsure. Now I'm not.

          I also hope you know that when we speak of the creative acts of God, as in the universe, in our finitude we often resort to time based words, all with the full knowledge that these are but accommodations to our finitude. Think of the typical question by the lay person, "If God has always existed, why did God take so long to create the universe? What was He doing before He created?"
          Yes. MADDENING, I tell ya.

          I think it is possible to provide an answer that does not require first laying so much pipe that the question gets buried in the process.
          Though I agree to an extent, I've found it actually requires laying an adjacent pipeline rather than attempting to re-plumb what's there from low-context language sculpting of the heart and mind. I hope to meet you "in the middle" somehow. I hope you know THAT.

          When you toss out careful constructions as in "re--presented in created..." you cannot just let them stand naked.
          Yes, I know. Doing so in this venue will take great effort on my part. I'm wrestling with it. I hear you.

          You need to follow up with something along the lines, "By 're--presented in created' I mean the following...{please complete the sentence}
          Summarily... It means the singular hypostasis of God is re- -presented in the created phenomenalities with a distinct prosopon.

          The problem is attempting to convert uni-phenomenal grids of perception to mutli-phenomenal grids. That's been the historical challenge no one has ever undertaken, and all have misrepresented.

          In other words, do you mean to say..

          Time and space is the eternal uncreated that which is observed to exist (phenomenon) and knowable by the senses (noumenon) of God proceeding forth into all created existence (phenomena).
          No. Time and space were instantiated into phenomenal existence. The Son and Holy Spirit are the above. All created existence was merely noumenon until given phenomenon by the word (rhema) of God's power (dunamis).

          This is where I truly have to lay a new replacement pipeline instead of tapping in to old pipes.

          Feel free to suggest better wording of my constructions of the trigger words.
          I'll work on it and continue to post.

          How do you describe that interface?
          There is an innate incompatibility that is not historically accounted for, instead projecting time upon God in various ways (though involuntarily, and while doing lip-service to the contrary).

          Is this not tautological?
          No.

          Of course the formulation came after creation, as there was no one around to formulate the same, not to mention no special revelation (Scripture). Have I misunderstood?
          Yes. I was referring to the formulaic beginning after creation, but the formulators presuming to have begun "before" creation. They did not account for creation of aeviternity and all forms of time, though presuming to.

          We have been at it for more than a few hours here and about. Time for you to break out those visual aids you say speak louder than words.

          AMR
          Maybe soon. I'm really wanting to pursue a dismantling of English concepts that falsely drive truths in the Greek text.
          Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; November 18th, 2015, 09:22 AM.
          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

          Comment


          • I have read through this thread a number of times. It is one of my favorites.

            PPS - would you mind saying where you attend church?

            Comment


            • I'd rather be IN fellowship with other Christians than not, however, with there being key distinctions in definition and doctrine, how is that possible?

              I'm thinking of the Filioque for example.

              Three hypostasis vs one.

              These don't seem like minor points.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cedarbay View Post
                I have read through this thread a number of times. It is one of my favorites.

                PPS - would you mind saying where you attend church?
                At present (and because of Pastor's hearts and relationships with them personally), I interchangeably attend a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) fellowship and a Southern Baptist fellowship.

                Both Pastors are competent and insightful theologians; and both insist vehemently that I am orthodox and "catholic" (in the appropriate general sense). And both insist I should be pursuing a PhD/ThD to have my exegesis introduced for peer review within academia.
                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                  At present (and because of Pastor's hearts and relationships with them personally), I interchangeably attend a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) fellowship and a Southern Baptist fellowship.

                  Both Pastors are competent and insightful theologians; and both insist vehemently that I am orthodox and "catholic" (in the appropriate general sense). And both insist I should be pursuing a PhD/ThD to have my exegesis introduced for peer review within academia.
                  Very well, PPS, are you going to do it?

                  Since Communion is defined differently in those denominations, where do you commune?
                  Last edited by Cedarbay; November 18th, 2015, 11:17 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cedarbay View Post
                    Very well, PPS, are you going to do it?
                    Yes. I've begun narrowing down the venue. That alone is daunting, due to relocation considerations, etc. even beyond affiliation.

                    I can't wholly embrace the Lutheran confession, though they have determined to accept me into it. I'm not Baptist, either; but their statement of faith is general enough overall to be okay except the three "persons" clauses which I refuse to affirm.

                    Since Communion is defined differently in those denominations, where do you commune?
                    The Lutheran Pastor had respectfully asked me to abstain until he could assure the congregation of my orthodoxy and my confession. He has now determined not to exclude me from the Holy Communion.

                    I can commune with any who affirm the deity of Christ. As corporate as communion is, it still is preeminently individual.

                    LCMS would agree with you on the Filloque I believe, right?
                    No. The only non-Filioque proponents are the Easterns and Copts. But I can acquiesce to a "Semi-Filioque" position of procession "by/through" the Son rather than "from" the Son. Most Filioque fellowships affirm such anyway; and few Pastors or members really have a clue about much minutiae of doctrine to begin with.

                    For me, the issue is the ontological Gospel of Paul. Either we're "in Christ" or scripture is a lie. The Gospel demands a Uni-Hypostatic Trinity. Most are mistaking elpis (hope/trust) for pistis (faith).

                    I am within the Reformed mantra in my sig. Nothing I present has ever been historically anathematized.
                    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                      Yes. I've begun narrowing down the venue. That alone is daunting, due to relocation considerations, etc. even beyond affiliation.

                      I can't wholly embrace the Lutheran confession, though they have determined to accept me into it. I'm not Baptist, either; but their statement of faith is general enough overall to be okay except the three "persons" clauses which I refuse to affirm.



                      The Lutheran Pastor had respectfully asked me to abstain until he could assure the congregation of my orthodoxy and my confession. He has now determined not to exclude me from the Holy Communion.

                      I can commune with any who affirm the deity of Christ. As corporate as communion is, it still is preeminently individual.



                      No. The only non-Filioque proponents are the Easterns and Copts. But I can acquiesce to a "Semi-Filioque" position of procession "by/through" the Son rather than "from" the Son. Most Filioque fellowships affirm such anyway; and few Pastors or members really have a clue about much minutiae of doctrine to begin with.

                      For me, the issue is the ontological Gospel of Paul. Either we're "in Christ" or scripture is a lie. The Gospel demands a Uni-Hypostatic Trinity. Most are mistaking elpis (hope/trust) for pistis (faith).

                      I am within the Reformed mantra in my sig. Nothing I present has ever been historically anathematized.
                      This is something for me to digest. Thanks so much.

                      Will be praying our Lord is blessed by your testimony and further education and teaching.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cedarbay View Post
                        I'd rather be IN fellowship with other Christians than not, however, with there being key distinctions in definition and doctrine, how is that possible?
                        This has been my dilemna in the inverse, since most professing Trinitarians are theologically illiterate and functional Tritheists to varying degrees.

                        I've more recently realized that non-/anti-Trinitarians are generally even worse, and any neutral affiliation with them is not prudent.

                        In summary, my main challenge is that there is no "where" or "when" within God for Opera Ad Intra internal filiation and procession; and that such represents economy rather than ontology, as well.

                        My contention is that paternity and spiration are internal as Opera Ad Intra, whereas filiation and procession are external as Opera Ad Extra. This also requires and understanding of the distinctions between UNcreated phenomenon and noumenon contrasted to created phenomena and noumena.

                        This last issue is the thing that has historically been missed and replaced for nearly two millennia; and who would dare challenge multi-hypostaticism until modern days when the penalty is no longer exile or death?

                        I'm thinking of the Filioque for example.
                        I can acquiesce to a "Semi-" -Filioque position of "by/through" the Son rather than "from".

                        But what if there's an exegesis that can validly and lexically demonstrate that the Filioque is unnecessary?

                        Three hypostasis vs one.
                        And Uni-Phenomenal vs Multi-Phenomenal. It's an issue of omission and resulting compensation.

                        These don't seem like minor points.
                        They both are and aren't. My affirmations list should clarify that I'm a Trinitarian.
                        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cedarbay View Post
                          This is something for me to digest. Thanks so much.

                          Will be praying our Lord is blessed by your testimony and further education and teaching.
                          Much thanks and many blessings to you, too.
                          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                            It would on video with an illustrated diagram.
                            PneumaPsucheSoma,
                            Do you have any self-made or recommended videos?
                            Omniscience limited
                            Prophetic guesses
                            Election by observation
                            No future yet

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by fishrovmen View Post
                              PneumaPsucheSoma,
                              Do you have any self-made or recommended videos?
                              I have several years of local weekly teaching sessions that I’m auditing and editing to begin producing podcasts and other multi-media dissemination, along with curricularizing a systematic in various written forms. It’s a huge project.
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                I have several years of local weekly teaching sessions that I’m auditing and editing to begin producing podcasts and other multi-media dissemination, along with curricularizing a systematic in various written forms. It’s a huge project.
                                I can only imagine, along with everything else you are involved with. As with Cedarbay, I too have enjoyed this thread and have poured over the posts and believe that I am beginning to grasp and put together your views. Please remember me when you come into your video/multi-media Basileio!!
                                Omniscience limited
                                Prophetic guesses
                                Election by observation
                                No future yet

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X