ECT Our triune God

[Bright Raven]

It's much less philosophical than the DyoHypoTrin version that drafted it's entire terminology to mimic and refute Neo-Platonism.

Cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. DyoHypoTrin doesn't represent the biblical parameters. It omits the central fixture of creation.

Everywhere I go, including all the jails and prisons on my itinerary each week, it only takes a few teaching sessions from the Greek to convey the truth and dispel the error.

The DyoHypoTrin doctrine presents an immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create ALL. Not deliberately, or even consciously. But nobody understands transcendence and eternity, though they think they do for some reason.

From His inherent existence in the eternal heavenly realm, did God create ALL? Is there anything or anyone that God didn't create?

Tell me the explicit distinction between aidios (G126) and aionios (G166), and how it applies to God, eternity, the cosmos, and time versus space.

:idunno:

 

[Nang]

:idunno:

That is what this pps poster is counting on . . .

 

[Lon]

On the contrary, I'll be able to correct. But I don't think others intentionally engaged in eisegesis, necessarily. Inference is an appropriate hermeneutical process if implicity must be utilized in the absence of the explicit. The explicit is not absent. I can utilize ONLY what scripture gives us. That's the superior hermeneutic and rules by default.

Scripture gives us:
An "extracted" ousia for God (from exousia and eimi, etc.).
A hypostasis for God.
A prosopon for the Logos Incarnate (Son).

That's all. So that's all I utilize. It's enough.

It isn't enough until we've rightly represented all scripture truth and revelation. "Out of" the Father in what sense? Incarnation? Colossians 1 has no problem equivocating Genesis 1 & 2 as God. There is no 'out of' suggested there. Similarly, John 1:1 says both 'with' and 'was.' Such is certainly eternal. "Out of" carries a 'finite' concept of change.
The incarnation is the only indication of such and unique.

Multiple individuated sentient consciousnesses is the modern conceptual problem. Even three hypostases don't indicate that. A hypostasis is a substantial reality. To ascribe mutliple "personalities" would be to thwart the singularity of Theotes with the multiple hypostases.

No, such is rather disclosure from God. The "Lord saying to my Lord" conveys degree of separation. Jesus cannot pray to the Father without a separation conveyed, and therefore undeniably true.

Hence why I have acquiesced to labeling myself a Trinitarian, but designating the caveat of Monohypostatic.

There is a magnetic polarity involved in stressing both Tri- and -une that I very much appreciate. We can do a better job of it, and in that sense, I'm for clarity, but am yet concerned about your terms and rejection of modern trinitarians. As you said, you are trying to replace triune belief, not augment or sharpen it. I cannot label it heresy until I see whether such damages one scriptural revelation or another, yet.

No. "His NAME shall be called..." That doesn't indicate the Son IS the Father at all.

Well, you are in good triune company on this one and I'm very careful to say I'm not. This verse expresses singular identity, as well as individualization.

The Hebrew is shem (H8034); from H7760, to put, appoint, convey, bring, appoint, etc. through the idea of definite and conspicuous position. An appellation. A mark or memorial of individuality. By implication, honor, authority, character. Name, renown, report.

"Name" is no cure-all separation. Name or description makes little difference in this text (notice 'little' not no difference at all).

His apportioned and appointed conveyed position as a mark of individuality, honor, and authority of character with the implication of representing the Father by perfect proxy (though there's much more to it).

And you are correcting me from a standard triune position, I understand this. My point again is to say "the Father is not the Son, is not the Spirit," for me, isn't careful enough because it doesn't fit with Isaiah 9:6 well.

Okay, good. Let's start there and expand bit by bit.

You have affirmed that God alone is UNcreated; and that nothing and no one else is UNcreated.

• Does God have His inherent existence in the eternal heavenly realm?

My initial statement would be "'No,' but with clarifiers."
Difficult to say. It, to me, is like God making a rock He cannot pick up. Why? Because theoretically He can build Himself something, like a dwelling but such would be infinite in properties to 'contain (horrible term for this) Him, and thus we are on about a chicken/egg consideration.

• From His own UNcreated self-existence in the eternal heavnely realm, did God create ALL?

Yes.

• Is there anything that has any form of existence that God did NOT create?

Well, sin is a privation, so "no." Sin does exist, but is not a 'form' but saying 'privation' does mean some 'thing.'

• Is there anything that is a noun (person/place/thing) that God didn't create?

Again, any concept/action proceeding from sin condition...

• Did God create the entirety of the cosmos and the heavenly host?

Yes.

• Is there anything else that you understand God to have created?

No, but this says more about me being finite and limited, more than anything. We are not 'privvy.'

• Is there anything else that God created besides the cosmos of the natural material universe and the host of heaven?

Same as above. For instance, I've no idea where angels dwell. They have 'access' to heaven.... Lot's of speculation here, I don't believe we are told definitively.

• Please be all-inclusive with no omission whatsoever. No backtracking later.

Again, not certain I am all inclusive in answers here. I'm not sure either of us can be. If you have verses that say so, chart 'em out but I no of no verses that would allow me to be definitive. I cannot be definitive where God has given me no right to be. I am, definitively finite and limited as to my created make-up.

And don't get too frustrated as I belabor this portion. It's ultimately the foundation for ridding others of severe cognitive dissonance and to be able to comprehend the truth.

Not a problem.

Also... I'll be interested to see your answers to my brief questions on Psalm 33:6.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Figurative.

 

[Lon]

I'm not speaking of the Theoanthropic prosopon, the Incarnate Logos. The Incarnate Logos had a reasonable/rational human soul. The will is a soul faculty.

The alleged eternally pre-existent multiple hypostases of the original Creedal Trinity doctrine didn't have individuated minds/wills as sentient consciousnesses. It's one of the distinguishing necessities of the original Trinity doctrine, and it's not recognized as an issue today.

God doesn't have multiple souls. The mind is a faculty of the soul. God is not tri-psuchos. Only the Incarnate Logos had a distinct mind and will. This isn't talking about the Logos in a pre-existent state as an alleged additional hypostasis. This is during the Incarnation, when the Logos was a prosopon with a rational soul; hence a mind and will.

Seems to say God was at one time modal (-une) and 'became' (tri-) through incarnation. Again, whatever you propose, must be in good keeping with all revelation:

"The glory 'I' had with 'You' before creation...."

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Can you briefly define dyohypo vs your view. Simple definition of each and how they differ, simply?

Sure.

The DyoHypostatic Trinity, like all other opposing historical God-models, presumes that heavenly immanence is transcendence. That's the central problem that created all conflict and confusion, with all view compensating for this central omission.

DyoHypo presents a heavenly-immanent ousia (essence) and three heavenly-immanent hypostases (substances; erroneously referred to as "persons"); with one of those hypostases having hypostasized in/as an earthly-immanent prosopon ("person").

So the three hypostases were two INternal processions of the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and Jesus is an individuated hypostasis of three that became a Cyrillian-Theanthropic prosopon. (And leaving also the question of the difference between the non-processional hypostasis of the Father contrasted to the ousia of God.


The MonoHypostatic Trinity presents an utterly transcendent ousia (essence) and a two-fold singular heavenly-immanent hypostasis of the Logos and the Pneuma via EXternal procession; with the Logos hypostasizing in/as an earthly-immanent prosopon ("person").

Some of your posts sound classical trinitarian,

That's because I've spent 15 years retaining every sub-tenet of the sentiments of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the subsequent Councils while reconcilling the error of heavenly immanence being mistaken for transcendence.

while others get lost in space with issues that are not biblical, but philosophical.

Nothing I've said is unbiblical and philosophical. You just don't recognize lexical language from the biblical language meanings.

Do you affirm eternal now/timelessness or endless time/divine temporality.

Not in terms that would correlate to your concepts. I understand the appropriate relation of transcendence, heavenly immanence, and earthly immanence relative to time/space and matter.

Is there a church, group, writer, denomination that agrees with you?

No. Nobody has ever attempted to reconcile the errors of the DyoHypo Trinity. Opponents just reject it and embace another erroneous God-model. Most dare not oppose O/orthodoxy and their indoctrination, etc.

Everyone who sits down with me or sits in a teaching session comes away rejecting the DyoHypostatic Trinity view. It's inevitable because it presents a God that couldn't and didn't create ALL. Once that is clearly shown, the truth becomes apparent.

 

[godrulz]

I imagine greater minds than ours could refute your view, but you are like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Can someone interpret what he said/meant? I can't believe he can actually convince people of this (perhaps they are stoned or drunk during his teachings)?

It is unlikely that you are the only one on the planet who has figured this out. Are you proud to be humble?

 

[Lon]

It's much less philosophical than the DyoHypoTrin version that drafted it's entire terminology to mimic and refute Neo-Platonism.

Cognitive dissonance is the obstacle. DyoHypoTrin doesn't represent the biblical parameters. It omits the central fixture of creation.

Yet to be seen....

Everywhere I go, including all the jails and prisons on my itinerary each week, it only takes a few teaching sessions from the Greek to convey the truth and dispel the error.

The DyoHypoTrin doctrine presents an immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create ALL. Not deliberately, or even consciously. But nobody understands transcendence and eternity, though they think they do for some reason.

From His inherent existence in the eternal heavenly realm, did God create ALL? Is there anything or anyone that God didn't create?

Tell me the explicit distinction between aidios (G126) and aionios (G166), and how it applies to God, eternity, the cosmos, and time versus space.

enduring (lasting, continuing) and perpetual (unending).
Distinction Eternal (unchangeable) and Everlasting (unending)

From Vines:
aidios G126
Everlasting:
denotes "everlasting" (from aei, "ever"), Rom 1:20, RV, "everlasting," for AV, "eternal;" Jud 1:6, AV and RV "everlasting." Aionios, should always be translated "eternal" and aidios, "everlasting." "While aionios (G166 given above Post 1378)... negatives the end either of a space of time or of unmeasured time, and is used chiefly where something future is spoken of, aidios excludes interruption and lays stress upon permanence and unchangeableness" (Cremer).

G166
Eternal:
"describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.
"The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2Cr 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., 'for a season,' and in Phm 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom 16:26; of His power, 1Ti 6:16, and of His glory, 1Pe 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Hbr 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Hbr 9:12, and of the consequent salvation of men, Hbr 5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2Pe 1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Luk 1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, Jhn 3:16, concerning whom He said, 'they shall never perish,' Jhn 10:28, and of the resurrection body, 2Cr 5:1, elsewhere said to be 'immortal,' 1Cr 15:53, in which that life will be finally realized, Mat 25:46; Tts 1:2.

 

[Nang]

Everyone who sits down with me or sits in a teaching session comes away rejecting the DyoHypostatic Trinity view. It's inevitable because it presents a God that couldn't and didn't create ALL. Once that is clearly shown, the truth becomes apparent.

If you present a god who couldn't create all, and didn't create all, you are just a nut case.

Bah . . .

 

[Nang]

Orthodox Christians cannot be accused of denying God created all.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It isn't enough until we've rightly represented all scripture truth and revelation. "Out of" the Father in what sense?

I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Exerchomai in John 8:42 and ekporeuomai in John 15:26?

The processions were ex- and ek-, and are external. DyoHypo has them as internal processions. Neither is en-.

Is that what you were referring to?

Incarnation? Colossians 1 has no problem equivocating Genesis 1 & 2 as God. There is no 'out of' suggested there.

I'm still not sure what this is referencing unless it's exerchomai and ekporeuomai that I referenced.

Similarly, John 1:1 says both 'with' and 'was.'

Yes. For the Logos. You presume the Logos is an eternally-individuated "person".

And are you not even aware of your doctrine's INternal processions for the Logos and Pneuma? That's the likely culprit.

Such is certainly eternal. "Out of" carries a 'finite' concept of change.

God's essence is immutable. And you don't understand the distinction between eternal and everlasting. That's part of what I'm trying to illustrate. This is the first real "clog" in the flow of the convo. I know why it is, but I can't remedy it. It's largely because you're unaware of minutiae of your doctrine, and because you don't know what you don't know.

Aidios is eternal. It refers to no beginning or end.
Aionios is everlasting. It refers to no end.
Proskairos is temporal. It refers to a beginning and an end.

The incarnation is the only indication of such and unique.

We're not on the same page. You're unaware of your doctrine's treatment of the processions. Ex- and ek- aren't and can't be internal.

No, such is rather disclosure from God. The "Lord saying to my Lord" conveys degree of separation. Jesus cannot pray to the Father without a separation conveyed, and therefore undeniably true.

During the Incarnation. And there IS separation, but not as distinct eternal hypostases. You're riding the concept and inference. It's quite difficult to overcome.

There is a magnetic polarity involved in stressing both Tri- and -une that I very much appreciate. We can do a better job of it, and in that sense, I'm for clarity, but am yet concerned about your terms and rejection of modern trinitarians.

I don't "reject" anyone. I reject Triadism as O/rthodox Trinitarianism. It's not.

Firstly, scripture doesn't give us three hypostases. But multiple hypostases don't represent individuated centers of sentient consciousness. Multiple minds/wills is multiple souls. You've skipped over that and inferred multiple minds because the Incarnate Logos had one while as Theanthropos.

As you said, you are trying to replace triune belief, not augment or sharpen it.

Not really. I'm reconciling the errors to the truth. O/rtho Trinity is 95% correct. It's Triadism that has largely replaced actual Trinitarianism. That's what I reject. You just don't see it.

I cannot label it heresy until I see whether such damages one scriptural revelation or another, yet.

Sorry, but I'm not concerned whether heretical conceptual Triadists label me. I've been called everything there is to be called by ignorand and adamant indoctrinates of simplistic understanding that don't even understand their own doctrine.

I do no damage whatsoever. I unveil the central omission of ALL historical God-models and reconcile them. ALL of them.

Well, you are in good triune company on this one and I'm very careful to say I'm not. This verse expresses singular identity, as well as individualization.

Maybe set aside English and go look at the Hebrew.

"Name" is no cure-all separation. Name or description makes little difference in this text (notice 'little' not no difference at all).

Sure it does. The name is the mark or memorial or honor or authority OF the subject.

And you are correcting me from a standard triune position, I understand this. My point again is to say "the Father is not the Son, is not the Spirit," for me, isn't careful enough because it doesn't fit with Isaiah 9:6 well.

Okay. I was only addressing it because you mentioned it.

My initial statement would be "'No,' but with clarifiers."

Difficult to say. It, to me, is like God making a rock He cannot pick up. Why? Because theoretically He can build Himself something, like a dwelling but such would be infinite in properties to 'contain (horrible term for this) Him, and thus we are on about a chicken/egg consideration.

Yes.

Well, sin is a privation, so "no." Sin does exist, but is not a 'form' but saying 'privation' does mean some 'thing.'

Again, any concept/action proceeding from sin condition...

Yes.

No, but this says more about me being finite and limited, more than anything. We are not 'privvy.'

Same as above. For instance, I've no idea where angels dwell. They have 'access' to heaven.... Lot's of speculation here, I don't believe we are told definitively.

Again, not certain I am all inclusive in answers here. I'm not sure either of us can be. If you have verses that say so, chart 'em out but I no of no verses that would allow me to be definitive. I cannot be definitive where God has given me no right to be. I am, definitively finite and limited as to my created make-up.

Not a problem.

Well... since we seem to be at an impasse of communication in ways, I'll just put it out there.

God created eternity. The heavenly realm is created. This means the entire structure of Theology Proper has to be reformulated to maintain all the same apophatic and cataphatic sub-tenets and components for the "how", etc.

Depending upon how this goes, I'll provide some further references and exegesis. But for the first time, I sense you're balking out of cognitive dissonance.

The DyoHypostatic Trinity couldn't and didn't create ALL. It depicts a God who has His inherent existence IN a realm He created. And it thus means He's immanent and impotent.

God INhabited eternity. He did so when/as He created it. The processions of the Logos and the Pneuma were EXternal as He spoke and breathed forth creation, filling the heavenly realm with His Pneuma and the presence of His Logos that would ultimately become flesh as the Son.

God alone is UNcreated. Before He spoke, there was NO where, when, or what. He created it all, including the very framework for referencing its parameters. All things are upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis. (Heb. 1:3) And only His dunamis (power) and Theiotes (Divinity/Godhead - singular) are aidios (eternal). (Romans 1:20)

God alone is eternal (aidios). Those things that are everlasting (aionios) had an inception. A beginning.

In geometric terms, eternity is a ray rather than a line. The cosmos is a line segment. Only God is a line (and that which proceeded forth/proceedeth from Him).

Your God couldn't and didn't create the eternity of the heavenly realm. Instead, He is contained and constrained by it. It's a self-defeating paradox unto itself.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Figurative.

Seriously? So the Lord (YHWH) didn't literally create everything by His Word and the Breath of His mouth? The Hebrew corresponds to Rhema and Pneuma.

God indeed literally created according to scripture in Psalm 33:6.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I imagine greater minds than ours could refute your view, but you are like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Can someone interpret what he said/meant? I can't believe he can actually convince people of this (perhaps they are stoned or drunk during his teachings)?

It is unlikely that you are the only one on the planet who has figured this out. Are you proud to be humble?

Typical Triadist response. Your gnosis has puffed you up against the epignosis in which love has abounded.

But enjoy your own false doctrine that you don't even know and can't express.

It's not me that's arrogant. It's all the clueless and indoctrinated who have to be told what to believe by dogma.

 

[godrulz]

Typical Triadist response. Your gnosis has puffed you up against the epignosis in which love has abounded.

But enjoy your own false doctrine that you don't even know and can't express.

It's not me that's arrogant. It's all the clueless and indoctrinated who have to be told what to believe by dogma.

Triadist? Gnosis? Really?

Can we have the old link for your website that tries to explain this stuff?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If you present a god who couldn't create all, and didn't create all, you are just a nut case.

I don't present one. You do. You just don't realize it. You have just labeled yourself and all other Trinitarians. And all other God-model proponents. LOL.

Bah . . .

Sounded more like a goat than a sheep. :rotfl:

Orthodox Christians cannot be accused of denying God created all.

Sure they can. Even Triadists like you and most others.

Your God couldn't have created the eternity of heaven. Your God has His inherent existence there. It's a place. It contains and constrains Him. Your God is subordinate to eternity.

God dwells in eternity. He INhabits it. You have no means of accounting for its creation, and your doctrine has resigned Him to have His existence there.

Instead, God created ALL where and when and what. He created the very concept and the framework FOR where and when and what.

Your God didn't create ALL. Your orthodoxy says eternity IS God and God IS eternity. That's some weird form of elevated Pantheism or Panentheism.

Your arrogance and condescension are wholly unwarranted, especially as a Triadist.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Triadist? Gnosis? Really?

Do you know what gnosis is? Do you know how it contrasts to epignosis and oida and dianoia and suneimi?

Yes, it's gnosis. That's what puffs up. My epignosis doesn't, but is presumed to.

Can we have the old link for your website that tries to explain this stuff?

What link? And why would you want any more info about this? You think others are stoned or drunk when they comprehend it. Why not just ignore it and go on your way as a Triadist who thinks he's a Trintiarian?

It's the Trinity doctrine reconciled to include God's biblical creation of ALL, which includes eternity. Your God is too immanent and impotent to create ALL.

That should be sobering. It often isn't because of cognitive dissonance. That's not my fault. I didn't indoctrinate everyone and leave out the central fixture of creation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And this is always where the needless conflict escalates anew because professing Trinitarians don't and can't comprehend that their God couldn't and didn't create ALL because of cognitive dissonance and/or indoctrination, etc.

 

[Lon]

I imagine greater minds than ours could refute your view, but you are like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Just a bit of church history and lexicon delving, required but I agree it is required for this traverse so far.

Can someone interpret what he said/meant? I can't believe he can actually convince people of this (perhaps they are stoned or drunk during his teachings)?

I'll give it a shot, but it is the opposite, requiring study. He's not talking gibberish. AMR sometimes taxes my brain as well. At any rate here is the gist:

I'll attempt laymen's terms for the whole later after I'm sure of a reasonable and accurate description. I can tell you, I believe he is pointing out a heresy of believing that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. If we've allowed such in our doctrine, there is indeed a problem but, to me, would signify neglect rather than departure. I can't be detailed here until such is brought more to focus because I'm also being speculative until such is clarified further.

Until then:
The problem of the two natures of Christ as it relates to the Trinity, presumes that God's existence is transcendence (beyond physical). That's the central problem that created all conflict and confusion, with all views compensating for this omission (no idea what the point is, yet).
A person or group who believes that Christ has two natures, presents one God and three substances; erroneously referred to as "persons"; with one of those 'person's,' as the spiritual being/entity, understood as if he were physical or concrete in/as an earthly-immanent prosopon ("person").

So the three hypostases (realities/entities) were two INternal processions(came out of) of the Son , and the Holy Spirit; and Jesus is an individuated hypostasis of three that became a Cyrillian-Theanthropic (and early church father's definition of Christ's existence, some of which is posted in thread last page) prosopon (person/being). (And leaving also the question of the difference between the non-processional hypostasis of the Father contrasted to the ousia of God (in other words, I believe, he is saying it is wrong to say or think that the Son came out of the Father but rather, was part and parcel to His own incarnation - probably not exact here).

The MonoHypostatic Trinity presents an utterly transcendent(beyond physical) ousia (essence) and a two-fold singular heavenly-immanent hypostasis of the Logos(Jesus) and the Pneuma(spirit) via EXternal procession(not just from the Father, I think); with the Logos hypostasizing in/as an earthly-immanent prosopon ("person").

It is unlikely that you are the only one on the planet who has figured this out. Are you proud to be humble?

A couple of resources:
1) The Doctrine of God and Christ In the ECF's - (more than one volume)
2) Arian Controversy

 

[Nang]

Your God couldn't have created the eternity of heaven.

There are three "heavens" revealed in Scripture.

The "heavenly of heavenlies" being the uncreated realm of God, and the other two heavens, being created outer space and the created atmosphere of the earth.

Your God has His inherent existence there.

Where? Which?

It's a place. It contains and constrains Him. Your God is subordinate to eternity.

Where? which?

God dwells in eternity.

God is omnipresent within His own spiritual realm, as well as in His created realm.

He INhabits it. You have no means of accounting for its creation.

That is because It is not created.

Eternity is not part of God's creation. It transcends the material.

(And pantheism only applies to the temporal, material realm given as the abode of creatures )

You are trying to confuse the eternal with the material.

Why?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nang, why do you say God didn't create the heaven in which he lives? Do you have any scriptural proof of that?

 

[Lon]

And this is always where the needless conflict escalates anew because professing Trinitarians don't and can't comprehend that their God couldn't and didn't create ALL because of cognitive dissonance and/or indoctrination, etc.

It depends. I think/predict, you are honing a dull area, rather than exposing a whole-sale fully embraced heresy. I 'suspect' you are triune in nearly the same sense I am. I 'think' you make some of your own problems and conflicts by coming to laypersons' boards with lexicology, etc., but we'll see.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yet to be seen....

enduring (lasting, continuing) and perpetual (unending).
Distinction Eternal (unchangeable) and Everlasting (unending)

And this is precisely why I prefer Zodhiates for detail of lexical content. As often happens, Vines has them in the inverse.

Aidios indicates no beginning or end.
Aionios indicates perpetual duration with no end.