ECT PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism
- Thread starter Ask Mr. Religion
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I can't even image the daunting task of clinging to opera ad intra and attempting to defend it, especially with valid lexicography and exegesis.
Jesuit? Eek. I hope not.
My love for you both as Brothers is unquestioned and unconditional.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well...we'll see how it goes.
Shhh! :rain:
Back at you both.
AMR
Arsenios
Well-known member
The Fathers differentiate absolutely between temporality and a-temporality, and within temporality between fallen and eternal life.
Well, we proclaim the timeless God, the eternal creation of the timeless God, and the temporary condition of fallen man.
Your corrections would help...
You may be mis-caricaturizing Orthodoxy as much as you think I am mis-caricaturizing you... The three uncreated hypostases that are God are neither post-creation nor post-procession.
You have, I think, the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit twisted together in apposition with the ekonomia of the creation of the Word of God, and you seem to think that Mind = God Who has Thought/Logos Which when spoken creates creation in multi-level phenomena...
The Angels are the first-created, and in their realm, time is perhaps both fluid and specific - Specific in their interactions with fallen man, yet fluid in its experience... They are bodiless powers that can appear but normally do not... Their appearance is noetic normally, but not always...
And again, it is not enough to assert my confusion of what you said without showing how I have done so and correcting it...
The mess in the West is directly traceable to 10th century Papalism proclaiming the authority of the human Latin Patriarch OVER the Body of Christ on earth. It had nothing to do with doctrines or their lack regarding time in the angelic creation...
Do you start by drawing a circle and calling it a REALM of TIME?
Gotta run...
Arsenios
Edited to add:
I just looked and realized that this is not in the "Our Triune God" thread, so please forgive my intrusion...
I was in a hurry prior to services this morning and lost track...
It is happening more frequently these days...
Lapses, I say...
A.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I copy/pasted this into the Triune God thread and responded there.
Arsenios
Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
God's incommunicable attributes include...
Eternity (Timelessness)
Infinity (Non-Quantifiability)
Immensity (Non-Spatiality)
Immutability (Non-Changeability)
Simplicity (Non-Divisibility/Non-Compoundability)
Necessity (Non-Contingency)
Aseity (Self-Existence, including Self-Consciousness)
Impassability (Non-Passionality)
Immateriality (Non-Materiality)
Opera ad intra cannot include ek-/ex- procession, which is going from one place to another. That violates God's Immensity as Non-Spatiality. There is no "where" from OR to which to proceed as spatialities within God for additional alleged hypostases.
Not to mention that it would also violate His Eternity as Timelessness (since ek-/ex- procession would also be linearity and sequentiality along with spatiality), AND it also violates His Infinity as Non-Quantifiability.
Eternity (Timelessness)
Infinity (Non-Quantifiability)
Immensity (Non-Spatiality)
Immutability (Non-Changeability)
Simplicity (Non-Divisibility/Non-Compoundability)
Necessity (Non-Contingency)
Aseity (Self-Existence, including Self-Consciousness)
Impassability (Non-Passionality)
Immateriality (Non-Materiality)
Opera ad intra cannot include ek-/ex- procession, which is going from one place to another. That violates God's Immensity as Non-Spatiality. There is no "where" from OR to which to proceed as spatialities within God for additional alleged hypostases.
Not to mention that it would also violate His Eternity as Timelessness (since ek-/ex- procession would also be linearity and sequentiality along with spatiality), AND it also violates His Infinity as Non-Quantifiability.
genuineoriginal
New member
Not really.
Those are the attributes that come from Aristotle's Greek Philosophy for the "unmoved mover".
Try the Bible next time for the real attributes of God.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
By this do you assume God cannot act within Himself? That is, are you arguing all all acts of God be confined to ad extra?
AMR
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. Ek-/ex- procession is movement FROM (and) TO. That's spatiality, and thus linearity and sequentiality.
"Out of" as motion would then not be "interior" to the Father. The ousia cannot be some fourth thing as a component of God distinct from the alleged hypostases themselves, just to insist upon non-exteriorization for economy.
This would have to then mean the (purported) Son and Holy Spirit hypostases were inside the Father hypostasis both before and after the alleged internal procession, having moved from one "place" inside Him to another "place" inside Him. That's neither innate ontology nor economy.
Internal procession as ad intra would deny the innate incommunicable attributes of Eternity, Infinity, Immensity, and Simplicity. The two-fold singular procession for the Logos and Pneuma (exerchomai/ekporeuomai respectively) was external.
And beyond this... the express image (charakter) OF a hypostasis is not another hypostasis (with the third unaccounted for anyway). Charakter is the impressing or engraving, first indicating the tool and its impress. NOT the impressed.
God impressed His (singular) hypostasis upon His Logos. It's not a cookie cutter and another cookie. Cookie cutters aren't cookies.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, really.
Aristotle was a moronic shill. These attributes are represented in scripture and ascribed as Reformation affirmations.
If you'd peruse scripture, you'd find these are represented.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, they really are not represented in scripture in any manner near the distortions of the Reformation affirmations.
I have perused scripture, which is how I know that your distortions of God's attributes, as stated in the list you presented, are distortions.
Take this one:
Immutability is a concept from Aristotle, not the Bible.
Here is what the Bible states:
Malachi 3:6 6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. |
The Septuagint translates the word used for "change" as "ἠλλοίωμαι" which is nothing like any Greek word for change.
Since you are a Greek scholar, find out what ἠλλοίωμαι means.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm familiar with sanah, the verb meaning to change, to disguise, to be different. It means to become something different or to change an attitude or character.
It can also mean to repeat, to do again. It indicates doing something over a second time (like striking an enemy twice, etc.).
Pictographically, it included teeth and a seed (representing continuance). Combined, these meant teeth continue. The two front teeth are sharp and used for cutting by pressing down. Forefront. And the sense of repeating.
From this comes the idea of being at rest or in the state of rest. Ease, quiet.
Since that's the Hebrew understanding and meaning, I'm fine with that as God being Immutable according to that definition.
Immutability is not what I'm challenging with the procession.
genuineoriginal
New member
Then you are aware that the verse used to make the claim that God is immutable is actually a statement by God that Israel is not destroyed because He will not go back on His Word, not a statement of immutability.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Er, no. The “god” of the philosophers was lonely, isolated, and compassionless.
Since you challenge folks to read the Bible on the matter, perhaps you should take your own advice...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1532512#post1532512
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1532973#post1532973
AMR
genuineoriginal
New member
I read your attempts to use Philosophical arguments against the truth of Open Theism.
Open Theism starts with the Bible to find out what God is really like, but "classical" theism has always started with Philosophy first to determine what God must be like and then quote-mines the Bible to find verses to agree with the predetermined attributes of God.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, what I've become aware of is the fact that you're an Open Theist; and I can't tell you how disappointing that is, as I had considered you to be well beyond such a lack of understanding God's timelessness interfacing with all created time.
genuineoriginal
New member
I am a student of Biblical prophecy, and the fulfillment (and non-fulfillment) of prophecy shows that the future is open and the way God is able to fulfill prophecy is by actively using His power to make things happen, not from having to follow the script of an unchangeable future.
Cross Reference
New member
as in "open theism"?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
That's a false dichotomy. Neither has to be so.
I'd always perceived you to be one who looked for answers beyond paradoxical and insufficient binaries.
C. Neither