ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

LOL. It's a manmade philosophical term that all philosophers bandy about at will.

No, it's a term in inspired scripture with meaning. Neither Philosophers nor your own personal jacked-up ignorant concepts get to have precedence over scripture.

And evidently a genuine loving Brotherly truce was insufficient, so I'm out. You can talk to Jerry Shugart and the Arians and Unitarians.

 

[fzappa13]

Numismatist. I see what you did there.

Muahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Not Numismatist ... Nonismatist. Numismatist is what comes up when you try to google Nonismatist. The association was inadvertent on my part. That's just the nature of search engines. They are sorta like people in that they are only equipped to hear certain things depending upon their chosen data base.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

John 14:11
I (am) in the Father,
the Father (is) in me...

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 14:20
I am in my Father,
and ye in me,
and I in you.

John 15:1
I am the True Vine,
and
My Father is the Husbandman.

Scripture plainly states that...
The Father and the Son are One...
AND...
That they are Two...

Scripture doesn't "plainly state that they are two". Scripture just distinguishes them as not each other.

That is YOUR presupposition...

No. It's your refusal to accept anything other than rote dogma and presuming others aren't neutral.

I don't have an ingoing agenda. If scripture most clearly indicates ANY formulaic, that's what I would hear as God's Rhema and ascribe to.

If the Son were a created heavenly being or earthly man or one of three modal manifestations, etc., that's what I'd adhere to. But all of those, the Classic Trinity, and many other formulaics ALL lack ONE thing in common, and that's what the many years has revealed to me as the singular omission over which everyone has been arguing.

You have not demonstrated its necessity...

I've demonstrated YOU haven't and can't establish multiple hypostases as the necessity.

Argument by insult and excoriation...

No. Loving frustration with a Brother who refuses to consider anything besides Patristic dogma.

Well, I must say that I prefer the terms open minded, fair, reasonable, and questioning...

And to some degree you are those, while also not being those at all in many ways.

But YOUR name-calling is actually more persuasive of the truth-status of your understanding...

Have you ever considered that love has many forms, especially when attempting to penetrate an impenetrable mindset? Have you ever considered that it's an exaggeration to get you to consider the lesser degree to which it IS true, instead of it being insults?

You are indoctrinated. That's a fact. You have rigid bias. Another fact. You cannot see certain perspectives. True again. You're a precious Brother that I cherish in Christ and desperately would like to be able to at least consider the remote possibility that Basil et al were 98% correct but missed ONE thing which cascades into a handful of other compensatory minutiae.

Can you do that? Could you ever admit that the Patristics got almost everything right but missed one thing and its attendant compensations?

We could, I suppose, step off 20 paces and turn and hurl insults back and forth in, say, 20 word bursts three times, and then have a vote on who hurls the best ones, and decide the truth that way...

Or... We could stand face to face and you could continue bludgeoning me with unyielding adamance that not one thing could have been missed by fallible men who are presumed infallible.

That is YOUR question, and OUR answer is no, of course not. WE begin with One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...

Then there is a succession and subordination of the Son and Holy Spirit. "Begin" is a time term for a timeless God. But now the Father preceded the Son and Holy Spirit.

Where do YOU begin?

I don't begin. That's time. I acknowledge the one true and living God, who is revealed by the eternal Son as the Father. And I don't deny His Uncaused Self-Conscious Self-Existence as uncreated phenomenon and noumenon.

I don't deny His incommunicable attributes of Eternity, Infinity, Immensity, Simplicity, and Aseity while doing lip service to them.

Good,

Indeed it is.

Well now there's a humble and contrite spirit...

Total passivity with feigned non-aggression is not humility or contriteness. Weakness is not meekness.

You do not and cannot understanding that the sword of the Spirit has a scabbard. Nor did the Patristics. Though that's what it all comes down to, you can't even know what that means.

The scabbard IS the sword, just as much as the sword is the sword. Rhema is the subject as words that stand for the object. But the ONLY uncreated object(ive reality of existence) is God's (singular) hypostasis, which is the scabbard from which the sword is drawn and thrust by the Logos.

God's Rhema is both the subject AND its object. The sword and its scabbard (topos).

For God, Rhema is HIM. (The resulting -ma of the rheo flow of His rheo speaking forth His divine substance.) HE is the ONLY object(ive reality) that could have been thought and spoken about by the Logos. He impressed His very hypostasis into the Logos to proceed forth as the Son into creation as it was instantiated into existence as created phenomena.

To adhere to internal procession is to deny God's non-spatiality of Immensity, also compromising His Eternity, Infinity, and Simplicity. But you can't and won't see it, instead mesmerized by Patristic adamance.

We only know how it praxelogically occurs, and have been discipling that praxeology for 2000 years...

And doing so in subtle error with no openness to correction. The Orthodox could never admit one wrong. That's not humble or contrite.

Doctrinal understanding is a consequence, not a cause, of hypostatic union with Christ...

I didn't say otherwise. I just said doctrine can keep one from the faith that hypostatically translates, and leave one only with salvific hope that is presumed to be faith.

The Body of Christ CAUSES this union when we baptize 40 day old newborns into Christ...

No. The Rhema of God causes it. The Bride doesn't cause salvation.

That illiterate baby knows far more than think-tank brainiacs imagine they know about union with God...

That baby is conceived in spiritual death and cannot commune with God. Nowhere is paedo-baptism evident in the ministry of Jesus Christ as the standard for the Faith.

Jes' sayin'...

No, you're jes' repeatin'. It's dogma.

Indeed -

But you don't know what it means to "put on Christ" or how it happens. It's just a metaphor to you, when it's supposed to be a spiritual literality for the Believer's hypostasis. Having heard the Rhema as the resulting flow of God's hypostasis to bring the hypostasis of faith which translates our hypostasis into that of the Son as God's processed Logos which took on flesh, and through whom we partake of God's divine nature.

Back at ya!

Arsenios

Well... Contrary to what you infer... I love you, Bro. All I've ever wanted is for you to see the truth and then deny it for what it is, if you do.

You can't see how the Classic Trinity denies God's attributes and unknowingly superimposes creation upon Him instead because you can't see anything but horizontality and linearity and adjacentness, etc.

Sigh.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Not Numismatist ... Nonismatist. Numismatist is what comes up when you try to google Nonismatist. The association was inadvertent on my part. That's just the nature of search engines. They are sorta like people in that they are only equipped to hear certain things depending upon their chosen data base.

Yes, I admittedly had/have no idea what a Nonismatist is, thinking it was a misspelling.

Since Numismatists deal with coin denominationations, I thought you were being clever. Evidently even much more clever than I know.

 

[fzappa13]

Yes, I admittedly had/have no idea what a Nonismatist is, thinking it was a misspelling.

Since Numismatists deal with coin denominationations, I thought you were being clever. Evidently even much more clever than I know.

Well, it's been a couple of years .... perhaps it's time to dust it of once again. It's weathered fairly well as it concerns my previous offerings.




The Theology of Nonismatism

I created this term, Nonismatism, to fulfill my need for a word to briefly express my approach to the word of God that the English language lacked heretofore. Some have enquired as to it’s meaning. Like me, it is a work in progress, changing to accommodate my level of understanding as is needed. Though it is not as of yet entirely codified there are certain aspects of Nonismatism that may be pointed to with some modicum of confidence. To wit:

Nonismatism firmly rejects any and all isms, denominational or otherwise, while reserving the right to agree with certain tenets of any of them.

A Nonismatics' statement of faith is the Bible…………….. ALL of it.

Nonismatism seeks to preserve and present the verses of scripture cast aside, contradictory to and otherwise unwanted by ismatic theologies.

Nonismatism affirms the individual’s responsibility to come to an understanding of the word of God through their own sustained effort.

Nonismatics see “the church” as a group of any two or more believers in Jesus and rejects the notion it is a physical or denominational structure.

Nonismatism demands of it’s adherents that they be willing to cast aside any and all preconceived notions about the meaning of the word of God if the plain meaning of what they read of it requires it.

Nonismatism holds that there are no contradictions in the word of God; only what appear to be contradictions to the mind of man.

Nonismatics have no problem whatsoever saying, “I don’t know. I’ll study some and get back to you on that”. They are also encouraged to admit, “You might be right” if the occasion calls for it.

Nonismatics hold that the answer to Cain’s question is, “Yes”.

Nonismatics believe that “the Parable of the Talents” indicates that rather than stuff their talent down someone else’s throat that they are directed to go get more.

Nonismatism holds that not everyone is at the same level of understanding of the word of God and that this is not necessarily a “hanging offense”.

Nonismatism has only one Boss, the rest of us are servants……….ALL of us. There are no “chief seats” in Nonismatism.

Nonismatics don’t tithe; they believe they owe it all.

Nonismatism fully embraces both humor and irony as evidenced by the fact its adherents are fully aware that Nonismatism is, at the end of the day, yet another ism.


If you feel that you too are a Nonismatist you are thereby empowered to add or subtract from its tenets as is necessary to accommodate your current level of understanding of the word of God. However, as with all isms, it is inevitable that Nonismatism will give birth to other competing isms such as Anti-Nonismatism, Ultranonismatism and the like. If you feel so inclined please strive to maintain the purity of Nonismatic thought and avoid such innovations.

Love,

Mateo

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, it's been a couple of years .... perhaps it's time to dust it of once again. It's weathered fairly well as it concerns my previous offerings.

The Theology of Nonismatism

I created this term, Nonismatism, to fulfill my need for a word to briefly express my approach to the word of God that the English language lacked heretofore. Some have enquired as to it’s meaning. Like me, it is a work in progress, changing to accommodate my level of understanding as is needed. Though it is not as of yet entirely codified there are certain aspects of Nonismatism that may be pointed to with some modicum of confidence. To wit:

Nonismatism firmly rejects any and all isms, denominational or otherwise, while reserving the right to agree with certain tenets of any of them.

A Nonismatics' statement of faith is the Bible…………….. ALL of it.

Nonismatism seeks to preserve and present the verses of scripture cast aside, contradictory to and otherwise unwanted by ismatic theologies.

Nonismatism affirms the individual’s responsibility to come to an understanding of the word of God through their own sustained effort.

Nonismatics see “the church” as a group of any two or more believers in Jesus and rejects the notion it is a physical or denominational structure.

Nonismatism demands of it’s adherents that they be willing to cast aside any and all preconceived notions about the meaning of the word of God if the plain meaning of what they read of it requires it.

Nonismatism holds that there are no contradictions in the word of God; only what appear to be contradictions to the mind of man.

Nonismatics have no problem whatsoever saying, “I don’t know. I’ll study some and get back to you on that”. They are also encouraged to admit, “You might be right” if the occasion calls for it.

Nonismatics hold that the answer to Cain’s question is, “Yes”.

Nonismatics believe that “the Parable of the Talents” indicates that rather than stuff their talent down someone else’s throat that they are directed to go get more.

Nonismatism holds that not everyone is at the same level of understanding of the word of God and that this is not necessarily a “hanging offense”.

Nonismatism has only one Boss, the rest of us are servants……….ALL of us. There are no “chief seats” in Nonismatism.

Nonismatics don’t tithe; they believe they owe it all.

Nonismatism fully embraces both humor and irony as evidenced by the fact its adherents are fully aware that Nonismatism is, at the end of the day, yet another ism.


If you feel that you too are a Nonismatist you are thereby empowered to add or subtract from its tenets as is necessary to accommodate your current level of understanding of the word of God. However, as with all isms, it is inevitable that Nonismatism will give birth to other competing isms such as Anti-Nonismatism, Ultranonismatism and the like. If you feel so inclined please strive to maintain the purity of Nonismatic thought and avoid such innovations.

Love,

Mateo

LOL. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.

Non-"ism"-atism.

In some sense... Pan-ism-atism, potentially encompassing something from anything or everything.

I can appreciate such, though to a Hyper-Anti-Relativist and Mega-Mondo-Non-Subjectivist it can seem overtly Individualistic and centered on Self-determined understanding that is more intellectual than spiritually intuitive.

It is creative and practical in many ways, though. Well done.

 

[fzappa13]

LOL. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see.

Non-"ism"-atism.

In some sense... Pan-ism-atism, potentially encompassing something from anything or everything.

I can appreciate such, though to a Hyper-Anti-Relativist and Mega-Mondo-Non-Subjectivist it can seem overtly Individualistic and centered on Self-determined understanding that is more intellectual than spiritually intuitive.

It is creative and practical in many ways, though. Well done.

I'll send you your pass word and decoder ring later ...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'll send you your pass word and decoder ring later ...

Is there a digital smart-watch from Apple? That would be handy.

:chew:

 

[iamaberean]

John 14:11
I (am) in the Father,
the Father (is) in me...

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

John 14:20
I am in my Father,
and ye in me,
and I in you.

John 15:1
I am the True Vine,
and
My Father is the Husbandman.

Scripture plainly states that...
The Father and the Son are One...
AND...
That they are Two...

It is a small matter to understand two owners of the same property...

Father and Son own the Ousia that is God, together with the Holy Spirit...

The question is this: Can two or more Divine Hypostases co-inhere in one another?

The Orthodox say yes...

And speak from the experience of Divinization, which is quintessentially such a co-inherence...

So as well are the words cited above...

Arsenios

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

It is easy to understand that since the LORD God is everywhere that Jesus would be in Him, and since Jesus had the fulness of God bodily, God lived in him.

Jesus Christ has become 'The BODY' that Christians become a part of.

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

There is one body (Christ Jesus, which we are a part of) and one Spirit (LORD God) which lives in us a well as Jesus.

One Spirit, one God, and one Redeemer (Jesus, the body of Christ)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

HE is the ONLY object(ive reality) that could have been thought and spoken about by the Logos. He impressed His very hypostasis into the Logos to proceed forth as the Son into creation as it was instantiated into existence as created phenomena.

Totally unfounded by scripture.

To the contrary, before ever the earth was, the Logos was thinkin' 'bout us, bro.


Proverbs 8: 30,31 KJV


30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;


31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.


I've heard you say David was merely a poet, but I'll stick with Prophet, Priest and King.

Kinda interestin' aint it, how the Holy Spirit spoke through David before he did Solomon on the same subject?


Psalm 22:8 KJV


8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

No. The Rhema of God causes it. The Bride doesn't cause salvation.

Nope. Yer both wrong.

It is the same power of God, that he raised Jesus from the dead with, that causes it.

That baby is conceived in spiritual death and cannot commune with God. Nowhere is paedo-baptism evident in the ministry of Jesus Christ as the standard for the Faith.

All babies are born subject to vanity.


Romans 8:20 TMB

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope,


They are also born with a spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:11 KJV


11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.



Unless God intervenes, their spirit can only search their own vanity.


1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV


14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .




Adam was created the same way,subject to vanity.


1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV


47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

[fzappa13]

Is there a digital smart-watch from Apple? That would be handy.

:chew:

Some folks just can't let go of Dick Tracy ...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Totally unfounded by scripture.

To the contrary, before ever the earth was, the Logos was thinkin' 'bout us, bro.


Proverbs 8: 30,31 KJV


30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;


31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.


I've heard you say David was merely a poet, but I'll stick with Prophet, Priest and King.

Kinda interestin' aint it, how the Holy Spirit spoke through David before he did Solomon on the same subject?


Psalm 22:8 KJV


8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.



Nope. Yer both wrong.

It is the same power of God, that he raised Jesus from the dead with, that causes it.

All babies are born subject to vanity.


Romans 8:20 TMB

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope,


They are also born with a spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:11 KJV


11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.



Unless God intervenes, their spirit can only search their own vanity.


1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV


14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .




Adam was created the same way,subject to vanity.


1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV


47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Simple truth for you, then I'm out.

Though the Logos was indeed eternally thinking of us, we (as creation) had no objective reality of existence until the divine utterance and our actual occurence in created time. We are not eternal and pre-creational.

...just as I said... The ONLY uncreated objective reality of existence was God as a singular hypostasis.

Now back to amateur hour for you, with limited response from me. You should like that.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Some folks just can't let go of Dick Tracy ...

Guilty as charged.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Though the Logos was indeed eternally thinking of us

Couldn't have been if all he had to think about was God.

we (as creation) had no objective reality of existence until the divine utterance and our actual occurence in created time. We are not eternal and pre-creational.

I never implied anything of the sort.

...just as I said... The ONLY uncreated objective reality of existence was God as a singular hypostasis.

What does this have to do with what God's son was thinking?

Or what is even crazier is, what does that have to do with what God was thinking of himself?

Since as you say, the scabbard God, is the Sword?

Why didn't Jesus know about this?


John 14:28 KJV


28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away , and come again unto you. If ye loved me , ye would rejoice , because I said , I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Now back to amateur hour for you, with limited response from me. You should like that.

Just as Arsenios falls under 1st Timothy Chapter 4, you fall under 2nd Timothy chapter 4.

You have heaped all the teachers upon yerself, and then got to thinkin' you was smarter than all of em.

:juggle:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Couldn't have been if all he had to think about was God.

I never implied anything of the sort.

What does this have to do with what God's son was thinking?

Or what is even crazier is, what does that have to do with what God was thinking of himself?

Since as you say, the scabbard God, is the Sword?

Why didn't Jesus know about this?

John 14:28 KJV

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away , and come again unto you. If ye loved me , ye would rejoice , because I said , I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Evidently, you will never understand. The answers are very elementary, but escape you. You don't have a clue what phenomenality and noumenality are.

Just as Arsenios falls under 1st Timothy Chapter 4, you fall under 2nd Timothy chapter 4.

You have heaped all the teachers upon yerself, and then got to thinkin' you was smarter than all of em.

:juggle:

Ummm....That would be you... projecting it onto others.

 

[Soror1]

Good morning, PPS

I've been on (and am still on) vacation and am having less down time than I thought, so I'd like to be brief for now and focus on this:

How is the Son God's literal Logos?

There are a few ways to approach this but if I said He is the intelligible object or product or image of God's essence understood--which includes paternity, filiation, and spiration (otherwise we could not understand them) and that the object/product/image need not be expressed (but is expressible) outside the being of God, where would you disagree?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good morning, PPS

I've been on (and am still on) vacation and am having less down time than I thought, so I'd like to be brief for now and focus on this:

There are a few ways to approach this but if I said He is the intelligible object or product or image of God's essence understood--which includes paternity, filiation, and spiration (otherwise we could not understand them) and that the object/product/image need not be expressed (but is expressible) outside the being of God, where would you disagree?

I'd simply say the express image OF God's hypostasis is the exact impress of that singular hypostasis upon His Logos for external procession, rather than the express image being another distinct individuated hypostasis internally processed.

The latter denies both lexicography (ek-/ex-) and God's incommunicable attribute of Immensity (Non-Spatiality), which then denies His incommunicable attributes of Eternity, Infinity, and (possibly) Simplicity. It also implies God's ousia is a fourth component distinct from the alleged multiple hypostases themselves.

There is no spatiality within God for internal procession as opera ad intra. And Logos is expression that is expressable. Another individuated hypostasis is not. "Persons" aren't spoken. Logos is. The divine utterance wasn't the Son speaking forth or being spoken forth. It was the eternal Logos proceeding forth as the eternal Son.

God spoke forth His own hypostasis as uncreated phenomenon within noumenal creation, thereby giving creation phenomenal actuality of existence. God did not speak forth another hypostasis.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good morning, PPS

Hallo thar. A few more thoughts on the below...

I've been on (and am still on) vacation and am having less down time than I thought, so I'd like to be brief for now and focus on this:

There are a few ways to approach this but if I said He is the intelligible object

But Logos is not the object. Logos is the means of conveying the object as subject. Rhema is the sword and its scabbard; the sword as subject conveying the scabbard as object, with Logos as the wielding/thrusting of the sword.

or product or image of God's essence

It would be the express image (charakter) of God's hypostasis (substance), not His essence (ousia); which is why the image is NOT an individuated hypostasis but the exact impress of God's singular hypostasis upon the Logos.

Eternal uncreated phenomenon exactly and eternally impressed upon eternal uncreated noumenon; the phenomenon giving eternal reality of existence to the noumenon.

understood--which includes paternity, filiation, and spiration (otherwise we could not understand them)

Spiration is the Holy (set apart) Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that seals the impress in the wax upon the parchment/scroll with the decree of Him who bears the authority and wears the ring.

The parchment/scroll is creation, which was noumenon until given phenomenality at the divine utterance when instantiated into actuality of existence.

God did not internally spirate. Ekporeuomai is out of/out from. And there's no externalization within a non-spatial God. The Holy Spirit was set apart into creation. God's innate Self-Noumenon as eternal uncreated Spirit partitioned (NOT separated) for distribution (by the Logos) from His innate Self-Phenomenon as eternal uncreated Spirit. Sword (subjective Rhema) drawn and thrust (Logos) from scabbard (objective Rhema).

and that the object/product/image need not be expressed (but is expressible) outside the being of God, where would you disagree?

The filiation/spiration as procession is not internal as individuated hypostases. The Son and Holy Spirit are a qualitative two-fold singular procession of God's singular hypostasis, "sharing" a prosopon in the created heaven and cosmos. God, the Father, is co-inherent in the procession while also remaining eternally and innately transcendent to creation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good morning, PPS

I've been on (and am still on) vacation and am having less down time than I thought, so I'd like to be brief for now and focus on this:

There are a few ways to approach this but if I said He is the intelligible object or product or image of God's essence understood--which includes paternity, filiation, and spiration (otherwise we could not understand them) and that the object/product/image need not be expressed (but is expressible) outside the being of God, where would you disagree?

G'Mornin'. New mercies... AGAIN.

A few more things to consider while you're vacationing in the Mediterranean or Caribbean...

How would filiation and spiration be internal? The only applied Greek term from scripture for filiation would be exerchomai, and the only applied term from scripture for spiration would be ekporeuomai (either one accompanied by heko, pempo, apostello, and/or erchomai, respectively).

Ek-/ex- is out of/out from, indicating motion. Spoken of such objects which before were in another object but are now separated from it, either in respect to place, time, source, or origin. It's the direct opposite of eis, unto, which means to become part of, or to be identified with.

Metaphorically, after verbs of motion or direction, ek speaks of a state or condition, out of which comes, is brought, or tends toward.

Going, coming, sending, throwing, falling, gathering, separating, or removing. After verbs implying direction out of or from any place, it is used to mark the point from which the direction sets of or tends towards.

Of origin or source of anything, it is the primary, direct, immediate source, in distinction from apo.

When combined with erchomai (to go or come out of a place) or poreuomai (to go out, to go or come forth), ex-/ek- is motion to and from.

With no spatiality for God, there is no "place" as either to or from within Him for such filiation or spiration. Opera ad intra is appropriate for consideration of non-hypostatic movement, but economy cannot be misconstrued with ontology.

For the Father hypostasis to be the source of the Son and Holy Spirit as hypostases, there would be no "place" for them to internally process as filiation and spiration.

God's ousia cannot be in any way a distinct component of Himself apart from the hypostasis/es itself/themselves. And any compromise of Immensity also broaches Eternity and Infinity, with a nod toward also denying Simplicity.

God cannot be comprised of hypostatically moving eternal parts. He's not a celestial grandfather clock or other mechanism. To have moving parts requires time and space for linearity, sequentiality, and spatiality.

Note that ek- indicates objects which before were in another object but are now separated from it. Now we have three objects, with two processing from one and being separated from it. This must be an exteriorization, but then perichoresis is invoked as a band-aid to gloss the issue. And it's all time and space based, with linearity, sequentiality, and spatiality required.

This is quite problematic for maintaining God's innate incommunicable attributes. And it means there can't really be internal filiation and spiration because the Father is the source and there can be no elapsation or duration or succession of events.

Opera ad intra cannot be structural and substantial movement or action. Such economy must be truly internal. The economy of two hypostases proceeding forth/proceeding as filiation and spiration would be foundationally constitutional and structural for God.

Think about the linguistic difference between a copula or gerund and a verb. Being and becoming are not doing.

Multi-Phenomenality is not a sequence of phenomena with God's economy occuring inwardly and outwardly in linear fashion according to time and spatiality. It's a verticality, not a horizontality.

There's too much ascription of creation to God, assigning Him time- and space- based economy internally. Filiation and spiration are misrepresented by the Uni-Phenomenal Multi-Hypostatic Trinity, no matter how it's subtly configured.

 

[chrysostom]

G'Mornin'. New mercies... AGAIN.

pardon the interruption
but
could you tell me
if
you are arguing for or against the Trinity?