ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, the divide between us is indeed vast in terms of pre-suppositions... And the Orthodox [I cannot speak for Rome] do indeed see man, as recorded in Genesis, as having inherited the death of Adam as a consequence of his having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of BOTH GOOD AND EVIL...

Hence we are capable of knowing, and indeed do in fact, know both in this fallen life. You see this as "our construct", and we see it as our experienced reality. We do not close our eyes to the Good in man, nor do we close our eyes to the evil in him. We see both...

And in these terms, we see those who ONLY see evil in man, eg those who embrace only Total Depravity, as keeping one eye buried in the sand of human experience.

Christ did say, that fallen man, being evil, does good things for his own children, but that reborn man does good also for his enemies...

The reborn man ONLY embraces doing good alone, while the fallen man who is evil only does good for his own... This is our empirical experience, and it is witnessed abundantly in Scripture, including Paul writing about "those called to be Apostles, as being the most wretched of men, a spectacle..." etc...

So that the unregenerate man does good and evil, while the regenerate man does only good... This, at least, being the guiding feature of the difference in their lives.

Which empirical and Biblical and Patristic teaching all affirm that total depravity in unregenerate man is false...

So we have a great divide indeed...

Indeed...

Unavoidable...

Not sure why you desire to lump EO and RC into your conversation with me here - I do not lump you with the Lutherans, for instance... And as to works mentality, what ELSE CAN man do. Scripture clearly tells us that we will be judged, at the dread and las Judgement, according to our works, our deeds... "I was hungry and you fed Me... Or you did NOT feed Me..." And yet the 5 wise Virgins sent the 5 Foolish Virgins to the MARKET to purchase Oil... Which is purchased by giving food to the hungry, you see... And the Rich Young Man was sent to sell all that he had, and give to the poor, and therein have GREAT riches in Heaven..." These are all works of which we are capable, but unwilling, in the main, to do...

Yet the point of such works, which are ALL works of repentance from self, are the ACQUISITION OF GRACE... The Oil which did not fill the Lamps of the 5 Foolish Virgins... Such that they could not be lit to enter the Bridal Chamber, being devoid of Grace...

The problem you will find yourself mired in here is the fact that two of the Gospels and one of the Epistles were NOT written by the Apostles, but by members of the Church. So now you have to reconcile having non-Apostles as authors in the New Testament which you just said did not happen and was non-transferable... As to the last, Elisha and Elijah disagree with you - The mantle can be passed...

I believe that the Church is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth... You seem to be railing against RC Papal Authoritarianism...

But Paul wrote that we are to obey those who have the rule over us in the Church:

Heb 13:17
Obey
them that have the rule over you,
and submit yourselves:
for they watch for your souls,

Do you believe this passage? And if yes, to WHOM are you obedient? And in YOUR Church, exactly what is understood by the words: "THE RULE"? And who, exactly is it that will give account for your soul who HAS this RULE OVER you?

You believe in Church Authority without believing in Church Authority, just as you believe in Parental Authority without believing in Parental Authority?

The Orthodox Patristic Tradition does not embrace some "Church Authority", even though we treasure obedience... The Latins, you see, treasure their "authority"... We treasure our obedience, as Hebrews instructs, but according to knowledge, not authority...

There you have it...

Please give an example of what this looks like:

eg - Two men walk into a sporting [or other] event, one a new creation, the other not, and here is what each of them did... etc...

I would like to see, in your own practical terms, what the difference is between a work of righteousness and one that is not...

Arsenios

The source from which the work is drawn and results. See poieo. That which is not OF faith is sin. The noun, sin. Not the verb. Not the action or resulting act.

It's all about the source. Every work can be either of faith or sin.

It's about ontology, not methodology. There will always be works. The source of works is the issue, not the works themselves. THAT is what will be judged in that great and final day. And all self-righteousness and faithlessness will be revealed, regardless of how it may have looked by outer appearances and man's faulty judgment.

Gotta be hypostatically translated into Christ, having put on Christ and put off the old man. No new wine in old wineskins. No efforts of man with himself as the source of any works. Only by and of faith. Faith is the access to grace. It is of faith that it might be by grace.

Gotta know what pistis and charis actually are, though.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

AMR passed this Trinitarian Test along to me and it is worth taking the time, just to know and understand the position.

There are 33 questions to answer, from creeds and Scripture and the response to the answer is given immediately and in detail (A LOT of tests should be given this way, because it doesn't affect the score AND the correction in thinking is immediate).

Since God is not three uni-phenomenal hypostases, I missed a few of these "weighted" questions declaring God as three "persons".

God cannot be analogized to anything or anyone else. By that criteria alone God cannot be "persons". Hypostases are not "persons", and God isn't three of them.

Modern English conceptualization yields functional Tritheism, and does not even represent the historical Trinity formulaic.

And why are modern Protestants and Baptistics adhering to Latin and Eastern creeds anyway? Especially when so few can address paternity and filiation of the Son and/or spriation and procession of the Holy Spirit?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the eternal, uncreated, divine aspects of God.

 

[Arsenios]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
are the eternal, uncreated,
divine aspects of God.

Because each possesses the same Ousia?

The Orthodox, of course, cannot affirm that God the Father is a divine aspect of God... Instead, we affirm One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...

Here is a 14th century Byzantine theologian's antinomial formulaic of the Holy Spirit when the Filioque controversy was peaking in a crisis in Constantinople that lead to the Turkish conquest of the Roman Empire:

On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since it is eternal; yet on the other, it is not without beginning, since it too – by way of procession, not by way of generation – has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. It also, [like the Son], came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; it is inseparable from the Father and the Son since it proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Son; it possesses union without losing its identity, and division without involving separation. It too is God from God; it is not different since it is God, yet it is different since it is the Comforter; as Spirit it possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son; it too is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. It is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. It is sent – that is, made known – from the Son to His Own disciples. By what other means – the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son – could it have been sent? By what other means could it – which is everywhere – come to me? Wherefore it is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through itself. From Gregory Palamas’ "Confession", citing Gregory II of Cyprus on procession of the Holy Spirit.

An amazingly succinct bit of writing.
Features that are the same, and yet not the same, throughout...
Division without separation...
Union without confusion...

 

[Arsenios]

The source from which the work is drawn and results. See poieo. That which is not OF faith is sin. The noun, sin. Not the verb. Not the action or resulting act.

It's all about the source. Every work can be either of faith or sin.

It's about ontology, not methodology. There will always be works. The source of works is the issue, not the works themselves. THAT is what will be judged in that great and final day. And all self-righteousness and faithlessness will be revealed, regardless of how it may have looked by outer appearances and man's faulty judgment.

Gotta be hypostatically translated into Christ, having put on Christ and put off the old man. No new wine in old wineskins. No efforts of man with himself as the source of any works. Only by and of faith. Faith is the access to grace. It is of faith that it might be by grace.

Gotta know what pistis and charis actually are, though.

So that when these two walk into a situation, they both may do the same thing, and one act will be righteous because the inner mental state of the person doing it is God-oriented, and the other one, doing the identical action, will be unrighteous because he is doing it for reasons self determined...

Both, for instance, may prostrate themselves before the ruler of a country, but one from the motive of the love of God, and the other from the motive of fear of the wrath of that despot...

I get that...

Yet there are other better situations where their inner motives will find outer expressions that differ radically, and glorify thereby much differently each of their origins... And it was one of these that I was hoping he might show to illustrate the difference...

The freedom of one abiding in Christ, for instance, is the freedom from any fear or desire of any worldly consequences of actions as a determiner of those actions. Hence gluttony is not avoided from fear of obesity, and fasting is not embraced for love one's svelt and girlish figure, nor askesis for worldly glory, but all out of obedience to God in one's utter love for Him... etc...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Because each possesses the same Ousia?

Yes and no, depending on exactly what the question means relative to the answer. They are the multi-phenomenal singular hypostasis which underlies the ousia.

The Orthodox, of course, cannot affirm that God the Father is a divine aspect of God...

It was the pre-Nicean expression. Again, it would depend upon the meaning of the English word aspect; but it certainly is better than the English word person.

Instead, we affirm One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible...

As do I.

Here is a 14th century Byzantine theologian's antinomial formulaic of the Holy Spirit when the Filioque controversy was peaking in a crisis in Constantinople that lead to the Turkish conquest of the Roman Empire:

On the one hand, the Holy Spirit is, together with the Father and the Son, without beginning, since it is eternal; yet on the other, it is not without beginning, since it too – by way of procession, not by way of generation – has the Father as foundation, source, and cause. It also, [like the Son], came forth from the Father before all ages, without change, impassibly, not by generation, but by procession; it is inseparable from the Father and the Son since it proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Son; it possesses union without losing its identity, and division without involving separation. It too is God from God; it is not different since it is God, yet it is different since it is the Comforter; as Spirit it possesses hypostatic existence, proceeds from the Father, and is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son; it too is the cause of all created things, since it is in the Spirit that they are perfected. It is identical and equal with the Father and the Son, with the exception of unbegottenness and generation. It is sent – that is, made known – from the Son to His Own disciples. By what other means – the Spirit which is inseparable from the Son – could it have been sent? By what other means could it – which is everywhere – come to me? Wherefore it is sent not only from the Son, but from the Father and through the Son, and is manifested through itself. From Gregory Palamas’ "Confession", citing Gregory II of Cyprus on procession of the Holy Spirit.

An amazingly succinct bit of writing.
Features that are the same, and yet not the same, throughout...
Division without separation...
Union without confusion...

It...It...It...It...It...It...It...It...It...It...It...It...

Lot's of "It" references to the Holy Spirit.

Though I take issue with all the "It" references (as should you), I affirm all He has said above.

It continues to amaze and sadden me that I would be considered heterodox by the Orthodox when I am much more meticulous with pronouns than a revered Saint and theologian.

The Holy Spirit had no beginning, nor did the Son. Only creation/created has a beginning. If you could ever understand phenomenon and noumenon, you'd know there is a much more succint, profound, and accurate simplicity to Theology Proper.

Thanks for the quote. I always enjoy the Early Fathers being referenced.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So that when these two walk into a situation, they both may do the same thing, and one act will be righteous because the inner mental state of the person doing it is God-oriented, and the other one, doing the identical action, will be unrighteous because he is doing it for reasons self determined...

Both, for instance, may prostrate themselves before the ruler of a country, but one from the motive of the love of God, and the other from the motive of fear of the wrath of that despot...

I get that...

Yet there are other better situations where their inner motives will find outer expressions that differ radically, and glorify thereby much differently each of their origins... And it was one of these that I was hoping he might show to illustrate the difference...

The freedom of one abiding in Christ, for instance, is the freedom from any fear or desire of any worldly consequences of actions as a determiner of those actions. Hence gluttony is not avoided from fear of obesity, and fasting is not embraced for love one's svelt and girlish figure, nor askesis for worldly glory, but all out of obedience to God in one's utter love for Him... etc...

Arsenios

Well said, my friend.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes and no, depending on exactly what the question means relative to the answer. They are the multi-phenomenal singular hypostasis which underlies the ousia.

It was the pre-Nicean expression. Again, it would depend upon the meaning of the English word aspect; but it certainly is better than the English word person.

Perhaps here would be a good place to ask you how you do fit the term Person and Prosopon [face] into your understanding of Ousia, Hypostasis/es, and God... You seem to characteristically avoid using it for the most part, and instead retain Hypostasis while denigrating person to the dung-heap of English colloquialism...

Lot's of "It" references to the Holy Spirit.

I don't have the Greek text, but this could be translating autos/on, which can do both... What is he talking about? It is the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is God. He is God...

Though I take issue with all the "It" references (as should you), I affirm all He has said above.

A minor quibble, I agree...

The Holy Spirit had no beginning, nor did the Son.

Yet being beginningless, they both have an Origin, the Father, Who does NOT have an origin... This is Orthodox antinomial theological thinking... It requires Mystery to embrace a beginningless origination...

Only creation/created has a beginning.

And that beginning is foundational, and not merely temporal... See the term arche in John 1...

If you could ever understand phenomenon and noumenon,

Noumenon is perception of that which appears, eg phenomena...

Both are created as we know them...

Both visible and invisible...

As attributes of God's Ousia, they are unknowable...

For God's Ousia is unknowable...

you'd know there is a much more succinct, profound, and accurate simplicity to Theology Proper.

Theology Proper is ontological union with God, the Marriage of the Lamb...

Thanks for the quote.
I always enjoy the Early Fathers being referenced.

That one was pretty good...

The book from which it was taken is titled: "Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289)"

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Perhaps here would be a good place to ask you how you do fit the term Person and Prosopon [face] into your understanding of Ousia, Hypostasis/es, and God...

The hypostasis (foundational/substantial objective reality for existence) underlies the ousia (essence and wealth of/as being), while also determining the quality of the physis; all outwardly presented by the prosopon.

You seem to characteristically avoid using it for the most part, and instead retain Hypostasis while denigrating person to the dung-heap of English colloquialism...

I definitely relegate the English term "person" to the dungheap of colloquialism, and for good reason. English did not even exist during the formulation period of the historical Trinity doctrine, and the Latin persona/ae parallels neither hypostasis in Greek nor person in English for definitive meaning.

In English, all beings are not persons, but all persons are beings. The issue is whether or not colloquial English can truly translate the term hypostasis and represent all of its innate meaning. It cannot; and the fact that faith is a hypostasis emphasizes that fact.

Person is much too catapahatic, and is an analogous reference to the created. It's better to not compare God in noun form to creation, but to refer to Him more adjectivally since man is but in His image.

And most moderns conceptualize Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a manner more relative to Tritheism than Monotheism. As I've said before many times... the overal consensus description is of multiple sentient beings conjoined like divine siamese triplets.

I don't have the Greek text, but this could be translating autos/on, which can do both... What is he talking about? It is the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is God. He is God...

Absolutely. And not merely a divine force.

A minor quibble, I agree...

Yes, I suppose it's minor, but the explicit "He" pronoun would seem to be crucial to multi-hypostatic Trinity expression to avoid criticism and false accusation.

Yet being beginningless, they both have an Origin, the Father, Who does NOT have an origin... This is Orthodox antinomial theological thinking... It requires Mystery to embrace a beginningless origination...

Well... It's more of a gloss for an unresolvable paradox according to Orthodox assertions, from my perspective. And musterion, as we've discussed, is revealed rather than hidden. One cannot speak at length of the -usterion and still claim the mmmmmm- silence.

And this is where it's vital to understand God's UNcreated phenomenon and noumenon contrasted to created phenomena and noumena.

And that beginning is foundational, and not merely temporal... See the term arche in John 1...

Agreed, vehemently.

Noumenon is perception of that which appears, eg phenomena...

So God has no appearance nor self-perception of His own existence?

Both are created as we know them...

As we know them... AND see them. No man hath seen God at any time (in His intrinsic essence).

Both visible and invisible...

As attributes of God's Ousia, they are unknowable...

For God's Ousia is unknowable...

Then at the very least, one could never apophatically eliminate God being uncreated phenomenon with noumenon.

This is where I succinctly cannot and will not ever pursue Orthodoxy any longer. The Orthodox claim God neither exists nor doesn't exist; and that is a half-step away from Neo-Platonism, and is not truly apophatic. The very representation of the word eimi and its employment in scripture for God indicates otherwise.

This is where I must always adhere to the general cry of the Reformation and eschew Orthodox indoctrination. It is something we can barely discuss cordially.

St. Basil was right in dispelling division over geographic terms and usage. But he was wrong at a deeper foundation. You could never say, or even think, that. And that is where we must part company on such subject matter, and I cannot ever embrace the Antiochian traditions with any trust.

Theology Proper is ontological union with God, the Marriage of the Lamb...

Yes. The ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God.

That one was pretty good...

Yes, if the Early Fathers hadn't erroneously substituted multi-hypoststicism for multi-phenomenality, I'd very likely be attending Liturgy every week. Alas, I will not and cannot ever go back or pursue Orthodoxy.

The book from which it was taken is titled: "Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289)"

Arsenios

Thank you for the reminder.

 

[fzappa13]

I am so pleased with you guys' ongoing ability to kiss and make up.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am so pleased with you guys' ongoing ability to kiss and make up.

Arsenios is a true and beloved Brother. My forthright candor at times is actually because I trust his heart, not because I despise him.

I disagree with the Orthodox assertion that is too close to Neo-Platonism. He cannot but embrace such because it is tradition.

God exists. He shines. He appears. And without any need for a beholder or to be beheld.

God is UNcreated phenomenon. The Orthodox disagree and insist God neither exists nor doesn't exist, and created existence.

I reject this false binary, and recognize their erroneous replacement of multi-phenomenality with alleged multi-hypostaticism for God.

In the end... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated divinity, and are not each other. I will not concede that they are multiple hypostases ("persons"), and primarily because a hypostasis is not a "person". They are inequitable terms from two languages with an intermediate language (Latin) sandwiched in the translation process.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Arsenios is a true and beloved Brother. My forthright candor at times is actually because I trust his heart, not because I despise him.

I disagree with the Orthodox assertion that is too close to Neo-Platonism. He cannot but embrace such because it is tradition.

God exists. He shines. He appears. And without any need for a beholder or to be beheld.

God is UNcreated phenomenon. The Orthodox disagree and insist God neither exists nor doesn't exist, and created existence.

I reject this false binary, and recognize their erroneous replacement of multi-phenomenality with alleged multi-hypostaticism for God.

In the end... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated divinity, and are not each other. I will not concede that they are multiple hypostases ("persons"), and primarily because a hypostasis is not a "person". They are inequitable terms from two languages with an intermediate language (Latin) sandwiched in the translation process.

The Son is created, not from Mary only, but definitely a part of the creation or the atonement is not in effect.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

LA

 

[patrick jane]

Arsenios is a true and beloved Brother. My forthright candor at times is actually because I trust his heart, not because I despise him.

I disagree with the Orthodox assertion that is too close to Neo-Platonism. He cannot but embrace such because it is tradition.

God exists. He shines. He appears. And without any need for a beholder or to be beheld.

God is UNcreated phenomenon. The Orthodox disagree and insist God neither exists nor doesn't exist, and created existence.

I reject this false binary, and recognize their erroneous replacement of multi-phenomenality with alleged multi-hypostaticism for God.

In the end... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated divinity, and are not each other. I will not concede that they are multiple hypostases ("persons"), and primarily because a hypostasis is not a "person". They are inequitable terms from two languages with an intermediate language (Latin) sandwiched in the translation process.

I haven't kept up on this thread, but I thought you guys would have had this stuff figured out by now !

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I haven't kept up on this thread, but I thought you guys would have had this stuff figured out by now !

LOL. I do. Arsenios just doesn't, can't, and won't comprehend or concur. But that IS the Orthodox way.

Blessings to both him and you.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The Son is created, not from Mary only, but definitely a part of the creation or the atonement is not in effect.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

LA

Yes, that is the Unitarian/Christadelphian view, based on a misunderstanding of the term Logos and other things.

The Son is most definitely the beginning of creation, but not Himself created. He is Theanthropos, not anthropos only.

You will never agree. I can accept that as reality. I understand your position explicitly and exhaustively. You don't really understand the orthodox Trinity doctrine, nor my aversion to it and correction of it. I can live with that, too.

Thanks for your cordiality.

 

[fzappa13]

Arsenios is a true and beloved Brother. My forthright candor at times is actually because I trust his heart, not because I despise him.

I disagree with the Orthodox assertion that is too close to Neo-Platonism. He cannot but embrace such because it is tradition.

God exists. He shines. He appears. And without any need for a beholder or to be beheld.

God is UNcreated phenomenon. The Orthodox disagree and insist God neither exists nor doesn't exist, and created existence.

I reject this false binary, and recognize their erroneous replacement of multi-phenomenality with alleged multi-hypostaticism for God.

In the end... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated divinity, and are not each other. I will not concede that they are multiple hypostases ("persons"), and primarily because a hypostasis is not a "person". They are inequitable terms from two languages with an intermediate language (Latin) sandwiched in the translation process.

Well, I'm kinda with you there as I wasn't able to get any sort of personhood out of "the" Holy Spirit regardless of the language. "The" is in parenthesis because the seven spirits of God and the Candelabra that represents them are completely unaddressed by much of anyone regardless of their chosen God paradigm as it regards the various manifestations of His spirit.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, I'm kinda with you there as I wasn't able to get any sort of personhood out of "the" Holy Spirit regardless of the language. "The" is in parenthesis because the seven spirits of God and the Candelabra that represents them are completely unaddressed by much of anyone regardless of their chosen God paradigm as it regards the various manifestations of His spirit.

"The seven spirits of God" is to be understood as an idiom for "the sevenfold Spirit of God". It represents omnipresence by referring to all other 7 compass points when accounting for any particular one.

 

[fzappa13]

"The seven spirits of God" is to be understood as an idiom for "the sevenfold Spirit of God". It represents omnipresence by referring to all other 7 compass points when accounting for any particular one.

I guess I missed that verse.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I guess I missed that verse.

Me too.

I've never heard of the body being given compass points.

Cept'n maybe head and butt, as North and South.

And that wudn't in the bible. lol

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I guess I missed that verse.

English simplistic proof-texting isn't good hermeneutics. Apocalyptic writings are not easily compatible with modern low-context languages and cultures.

It's important to understand the inspired intent of passages, and that includes recognizing that literalism doesn't exclude the intangible or the typological.

Seven is an idiom for seven-fold. It isn't a cardinal number designating tangible literalism. The Spirit of God isn't tangible OR quantifiable.

 

[fzappa13]

Me too.

I've never heard of the body being given compass points.

Cept'n maybe head and butt, as North and South.

And that wudn't in the bible. lol

Don't forget Baalim.