Welcome, PPS. 
'Nother Newbster
- Thread starter PneumaPsucheSoma
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
False Prophet
New member
Welcome aboard!
IMJerusha
New member
You're messin with an old lady's eyes, Stripe! One day you have no head and the next it looks like there's a smiling monkey's head where yours should be and it's wearing a sombrero. Freaky!
Hello PPS! :wave: You're over my head with fancy words. Don't waste 'em on me! I do carry a dictionary but you'll be waiting a long time for a response. KIS works real good around me! Yeah, I know what you're thinking but I downgraded it from KISS.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Hi, Stripe! I'll provide a thorough exegesis soon in a dedicated thread for discussion.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Thanx, False Prophet. I'll be anxious to hear the back story on your screen name.
OMEGA
New member
Are you a Catholic?
Non-dichotomist = NOT Dividing the Word of Truth or body and soul ?????
The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a common name
used for the Sacrament of Confession.
=============================
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Non-dichotomist = NOT Dividing the Word of Truth or body and soul ?????
The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a common name
used for the Sacrament of Confession.
=============================
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Hello IMJerusha! The initial exegetical presentation is necessarily lengthy and verbose with both English and Greek terminologies and lexical expression. But I can ultimately distill it to a few simple sentences once the definitions are understood.
You may end up frustrated and like me the least of all if it overwhelms you and bogs you down. It may seem needlessly complex before you ever see the simplicity that all have overlooked. We'll see.
Thanx for the welcome.
Welcome to TOL. I like the nickname PoPS for you as well. PPS is a little too impersonal.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Hi OMEGA!
No, I'm not Catholic (RCC) at all. I do consider there to only be one catholic (universal) and apostolic church, and I'm not fond of all the sectarian division in Protestantism and Evangelicism.
When I say non-dichotomist, I'm speaking adverbially in the lower case. As an example, the various (false) dichotomies like Calivinism/Arminianism can be reconciled. Not to each other, but each to the central truth that was missed for them to develop as polar opposites. That's the adverbial context of my statements.
I wasn't referring to a lack of dividing asunder relative to spirit-soul-body.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Hi Inzl Kett! At your good pleasure then, PoPS it is. I just hope all Trinitarians remember the endearing part when frustrated enough to shoot me at some point.
My heart is for reconciliation and not to be adversarial, but Theology Proper is always a heated issue to some degree.
Thanx for the friendly nickname.
You have the key point correct--the divinity of Jesus. That is what matters to me and what matters to God. The other stuff is just window dressing.
What really is key is found in the verse:
Acts 16:31 -And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
What really is key is found in the verse:
Acts 16:31 -And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
I'm new. I'm introducing myself.
I'm a reconciliationist and non-dichotomist regarding the vast plethora of sectarian divisions of doctrine. There is only one central truth on any/all doctrinal topics. Only objective truth is relevant; subjective opinion is only relevant to the extent it is in accord with objective truth. That will be reflected in my posting, especially in reference to Theology Proper. My style is "heavy" with vocab and lexical Greek in conversation. I don't despise simplicity unless it's an excuse for a lack of stewardship or scholarship. The inverse is appreciated. I DO despise inequities such as double standards. And response is NOT initiative. Please don't assign my responses as me initiating anything, as that's an inequity.
I'm a non-/anti-Trinitarian, but seek discussion and reconciliation according to biblical exegesis. F/S/HS are all distinct, all eternal, all uncreated, all non-modal Deity by subsistence; but God is NOT three hypostases/one ousia (three "persons"/one "being") as a Trinity. All historical God-models can be reconciled to the one central biblical truth of God's constitution, including Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism, and the various forms of Modalism and modern Oneness.
And I'm none of the above, so please don't refer to me as such; even if you can't understand whatever I say or present. Take my word for it... I know what the forms of Modalism are, and I'm not one. I know what the various schools of Gnosticism teach, and I'm not any one of them.
For both of you who love me already... muah. For those who don't care for me already... touche'. Jesus Christ is God and Savior; the Logos; God manifest in the flesh.
*
welcome. [curtsy]
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I remain torn to a great degree, though I know many consider the Deity of Christ to be the minimal salvific threshhold. And I've seen that the "how" is historically every bit as important as the "what" when it comes to proponents of the various views anathematizing each other as outside the faith.
For instance, most modern Oneness adherents and a large number of Modalists would affirm the Deity of Christ; as would Arians, Binitarians, and the various Ebionitists/Adoptionists. Only the Socinians like the Unitarians and Christadelphians deny the Deity of Christ. But they adamantly believe the literal biblical and historical Jesus was the virgin-born only-begotten unigue Son of God as Messiah.
Also, much is made of the various alleged subtle Hypostatic Union variants, with Cyrillian, Nestorian, Apollinarian, and Eutychian versions all coming under scrutiny and judgment relative to Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, and Diaphysitism for Christology.
And then there's the diversities of Trinity formulation, beginning with Subordinationist versus Economic, Non-Filioque versus Filioque, and all the Social versus Anti-Social variations. Though more internal and all adhering to 'three hypostases/one ousia", they are significantly distinct to each other. And I take issue with the core premise of the Greek terminology and, especially, more modern conceptual understandings from untranslated terminology and definitions. A good number of professing Trinitarians aren't actual Trinitarians.
My exegesis covers much of the historicity of formulation for Theology Proper, including Christology and Pneumatology along with Paterology. I'm more convinced that it's a bit of an all-or-nothing proposition overall in regards to simplicity or complexity. And in my experience, mystery is often an unacceptable excuse for a lack of stewardship and/or understanding.
I never set out to formulate/reformulate/exegete Theology Proper. I was a Trinitarian most of my life, and a bible college-educated pulpiteer for a dozen of those years. But I was lost because of Trinity doctrine, and have spent the intervening 15 years searching out the "whys" for that.
So simplicity is certainly a noble and functional goal for the Gospel, but must be the correct simplicity. I've long held simply that a heart which hears the rhema (word) and has faith is eligible for salvation. I'm not so sure I can exclude the Socinians, especially collectively. As with Trinitarians and others, I'd say few/some/many/most have true salvific faith, and few/some/many/most don't. I don't and won't judge the hearts of men. Soteriology has more components than just doctrine itself relative to Christology.
My heart is for all things to be reconciled to Christ and put an end to division. I believe the church is largely in infancy and apostasy to varying degrees because she hasn't gone on from the basic doctrines to teleiotes (maturity/perfection/completeness/having reached the goal).
I've tried to move away from adversarial harshness, and I don't prefer to absorb OR sling ad hominem; but that too often ends up being the result of this topic, me included. I still have latent negative concerns for a doctrine that left me lost without being aware of any deficit while serving in ministry leadership. I don't project that onto anyone in particular, but I've since ministered to a large number of others who simply couldn't sort out their beliefs, either, and a significant portion of them realized they were lost with Christ.
My hope is that a core group of us can engage in profitable discourse for the purpose of knowing Him more. I don't come here to persuade, but to provoke unto love and good works. I will likely fail at many various points to whatever degree, but I pray that I and all others will be corrected by the Spirit along the way regarding both our doctrine and our behavior.
In the end, I hold that the incredibly annointed and brilliant Ante-Nicene Fathers and the other later Early Fathers undertook a process of distilling and understanding of the transcendent God into an accessible format for understanding. I further insist that they missed the depth of three crucial understandings that affected the outcome of that noble process. Out of those shared conceptual misunderstandings came the various subtle or distinct God-models for Theology Proper. They ALL need to be reconciled to the truth of scripture that they represent in majority from various perspectives.
I doubt any of us would deny the true salvation of those evangelized by the Nestorians and others whose doctrine of Theology Proper was considered heterodox. There are boundaries, of course; but I'm not really sure who I would be free to completely exclude if they say Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (contrasted with the Docetic Gnostics). I'm fairly certain it's more an individual heart issue relative to oida knowledge. (I'll get to oida knowledge, and it's contrast to gnosis, epignosis, sophia, phronesis, and others during the course of my exegesis unfolding.)
Trinity is 90%+ scripturally correct. But so is some form of Oneness and the Unitarian model. Because of the imminent and subtle proximity of Trinity to a Triadist or Tritheist model, I'd prefer either of the latter. But ALL need to be corrected and encompass what the Early Fathers missed. They were responsively developing gradual apologetics to combat many overt heresies and other undetermined tenets that ultimately had to be addressed from within and for the attacks from those attempting to hybridize the faith with other whole religions. I think they did an admirable job to the point the power struggles left them contending rather than searching further.
Maybe this is already too much elaboration for an intro thread, but I wanted to clear the air a bit and minimize or preempt misunderstanding and misrepresentation later.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wow that was a mouthful. I won't even pretend to comprehend it. I approach life, death and God on a very simple level.I remain torn to a great degree, though I know many consider the Deity of Christ to be the minimal salvific threshhold. And I've seen that the "how" is historically every bit as important as the "what" when it comes to proponents of the various views anathematizing each other as outside the faith.
For instance, most modern Oneness adherents and a large number of Modalists would affirm the Deity of Christ; as would Arians, Binitarians, and the various Ebionitists/Adoptionists. Only the Socinians like the Unitarians and Christadelphians deny the Deity of Christ. But they adamantly believe the literal biblical and historical Jesus was the virgin-born only-begotten unigue Son of God as Messiah.
Also, much is made of the various alleged subtle Hypostatic Union variants, with Cyrillian, Nestorian, Apollinarian, and Eutychian versions all coming under scrutiny and judgment relative to Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, and Diaphysitism for Christology.
And then there's the diversities of Trinity formulation, beginning with Subordinationist versus Economic, Non-Filioque versus Filioque, and all the Social versus Anti-Social variations. Though more internal and all adhering to 'three hypostases/one ousia", they are significantly distinct to each other. And I take issue with the core premise of the Greek terminology and, especially, more modern conceptual understandings from untranslated terminology and definitions. A good number of professing Trinitarians aren't actual Trinitarians.
My exegesis covers much of the historicity of formulation for Theology Proper, including Christology and Pneumatology along with Paterology. I'm more convinced that it's a bit of an all-or-nothing proposition overall in regards to simplicity or complexity. And in my experience, mystery is often an unacceptable excuse for a lack of stewardship and/or understanding.
I never set out to formulate/reformulate/exegete Theology Proper. I was a Trinitarian most of my life, and a bible college-educated pulpiteer for a dozen of those years. But I was lost because of Trinity doctrine, and have spent the intervening 15 years searching out the "whys" for that.
So simplicity is certainly a noble and functional goal for the Gospel, but must be the correct simplicity. I've long held simply that a heart which hears the rhema (word) and has faith is eligible for salvation. I'm not so sure I can exclude the Socinians, especially collectively. As with Trinitarians and others, I'd say few/some/many/most have true salvific faith, and few/some/many/most don't. I don't and won't judge the hearts of men. Soteriology has more components than just doctrine itself relative to Christology.
My heart is for all things to be reconciled to Christ and put an end to division. I believe the church is largely in infancy and apostasy to varying degrees because she hasn't gone on from the basic doctrines to teleiotes (maturity/perfection/completeness/having reached the goal).
I've tried to move away from adversarial harshness, and I don't prefer to absorb OR sling ad hominem; but that too often ends up being the result of this topic, me included. I still have latent negative concerns for a doctrine that left me lost without being aware of any deficit while serving in ministry leadership. I don't project that onto anyone in particular, but I've since ministered to a large number of others who simply couldn't sort out their beliefs, either, and a significant portion of them realized they were lost with Christ.
My hope is that a core group of us can engage in profitable discourse for the purpose of knowing Him more. I don't come here to persuade, but to provoke unto love and good works. I will likely fail at many various points to whatever degree, but I pray that I and all others will be corrected by the Spirit along the way regarding both our doctrine and our behavior.
In the end, I hold that the incredibly annointed and brilliant Ante-Nicene Fathers and the other later Early Fathers undertook a process of distilling and understanding of the transcendent God into an accessible format for understanding. I further insist that they missed the depth of three crucial understandings that affected the outcome of that noble process. Out of those shared conceptual misunderstandings came the various subtle or distinct God-models for Theology Proper. They ALL need to be reconciled to the truth of scripture that they represent in majority from various perspectives.
I doubt any of us would deny the true salvation of those evangelized by the Nestorians and others whose doctrine of Theology Proper was considered heterodox. There are boundaries, of course; but I'm not really sure who I would be free to completely exclude if they say Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (contrasted with the Docetic Gnostics). I'm fairly certain it's more an individual heart issue relative to oida knowledge. (I'll get to oida knowledge, and it's contrast to gnosis, epignosis, sophia, phronesis, and others during the course of my exegesis unfolding.)
Trinity is 90%+ scripturally correct. But so is some form of Oneness and the Unitarian model. Because of the imminent and subtle proximity of Trinity to a Triadist or Tritheist model, I'd prefer either of the latter. But ALL need to be corrected and encompass what the Early Fathers missed. They were responsively developing gradual apologetics to combat many overt heresies and other undetermined tenets that ultimately had to be addressed from within and for the attacks from those attempting to hybridize the faith with other whole religions. I think they did an admirable job to the point the power struggles left them contending rather than searching further.
Maybe this is already too much elaboration for an intro thread, but I wanted to clear the air a bit and minimize or preempt misunderstanding and misrepresentation later.
You're a misguided Libertarian PPS. Hopefully this Christian conservative website will straighten you out.
Hi, Stripe! I'll provide a thorough exegesis soon in a dedicated thread for discussion.
Sounds like something I'll miss.