ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What? You don't understand that Lon is a paragon of virtue? :wazzup:

Of course I do.:sheep:

 

[Krsto]

I will. And I'll post. :drum:

You'll get banned. Lon doesn't cotton to your type.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Why I think you have thrown down the gauntlet. Let's see if Lon can do it. We'll just sit back and watch. Go Lon, the floor is yours. Don't be afraid.

He'll have to find some other sacred text. It ain't in the canon of accepted scripture.

Greek eats the doctrine alive. English no workee, either.

Anyway... most professing Trinitarians aren't. I'm just trying to get them to at least adhere to their own alleged professed doctrine that they need to learn instead of a conceptualized ideology via indoctrination.

The least they could do is admit it's total and complete inference based on eisegetic preference by default. That would be honest and accurate.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You'll get banned. Lon doesn't cotton to your type.

That makes no sense. If an OP debates with others he prohibits from debate, he forfeits the conditions in his thread. I'm accustomed to double standards, though.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You'll get banned. Lon doesn't cotton to your type.

And I'm not one of the supposed "culties" that were excluded. I qualify as a Monohypostatic Trinitarian, so I'm eligible to post.

 

[Krsto]

And I'm not one of the supposed "culties" that were excluded. I qualify as a Monohypostatic Trinitarian, so I'm eligible to post.

Ooooh, I like that! I've been trying to come up with a good label for myself. I don't like unitarian because people automatically think of Unitarian Universalists. I've used Christian Monotheist before but then the trin's say they are Christian Monotheists too.

Problem with Monohypostatic Trinitarian is it doesn't create enough distinction in their mind from what they are unless they know anything about the hypostatic union theory, and nobody does. And it's too hard to explain. Though it might get the conversation going in the right direction. I'll try it some time.

 

[Lon]

How 'bout you exegete three hypostases in one ousia from the text instead of imposing inane censorship to hide behind your eisegetic Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine?

O/orthodox Nicene Creedal Trinity doctrine is three hypostases ("persons") in one ousia ("being"). Go ahead. Exegete with no eisegesis of superimposing multiple hypostases into/upon the text. Get to it.

I've seen your song and dance and am not impressed. You 'look' like one of the other Arian/unitarian cultists on this board, even if you aren't one. Your 'friends' seem to be gathering 'round you. Paul, if I read scripture correctly would have you being more careful of your allegiances. Your toting the unitarian-goad places you in particularly bad company. I've been ignoring the lot of them lately. They are not a particularly 'happy' group (same reason they stopped existing the first century, it was not because of persecution). They all are sectarian fighters, disrupters, and inept, on this board. One 'seem's to know Greek but I doubt it yet because he doesn't seem to understand English very well but it might not be his first language or something. At any rate, that one is a unitarian so my hopes of intelligence are held out yet. He ran away rather quickly.

 

[Lon]

He'll have to find some other sacred text. It ain't in the canon of accepted scripture.

Greek eats the doctrine alive. English no workee, either.

'If' you can read it. Most are blow-hards on here and I despise them the lie. Lying is lying.

Anyway... most professing Trinitarians aren't. I'm just trying to get them to at least adhere to their own alleged professed doctrine that they need to learn instead of a conceptualized ideology via indoctrination.

Assuming you understand creeds better than others. I'm not particularly impressed. If you are just splitting 'triune' hairs okay, but dont' drag cults into your song and dance else you become one. All these others are arian (or unitarian).

The least they could do is admit it's total and complete inference based on eisegetic preference by default. That would be honest and accurate.

No, it is not. John 1:1 is clearer than clear and you'd have to be (and are) academically inept, to miss it in any language, including Greek. Language has a structure in all languages. Breaking that structure on purpose is nothing less than lying or at least very much mistaken. There is no possible way to read John 1:1 any but one way. :nono:

 

[Lon]

Yeah, you're not contentious at all. No hate, despite, or abhorance from you.

:rotfl:

Um, not too bright, at least today. That was the point: learn to read or at least take time to do so? I don't like them. I find them 'not my kind of people.' You fell right into their goading. You can throw your hat where you like, but if in that crowd, we won't get along. I don't have time for purposeful obtusion and self-deception, frankly. I don't want to hate or despise, or abhor - that was the message/point.

Oh, and it's 'spite' not 'despite.' One means 'beside the point,' the other falls to 'a desire to annoy' which is recipricol. My ignore button helps me stay away from that. I don't really have malice, it is just something to add to the list. Hate? Ecclesiastes 3:8, but I 'try' not to. Dislike is certainly there. You might want to add "spite" and "despite" to your word-a-day calendar?

How 'bout you exegete three hypostases in one ousia from the text instead of imposing inane censorship to hide behind your eisegetic Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine?

O/orthodox Nicene Creedal Trinity doctrine is three hypostases ("persons") in one ousia ("being"). Go ahead. Exegete with no eisegesis of superimposing multiple hypostases into/upon the text. Get to it.

You are ignorant. The triune doctrine was a protection against heresy, not really a fleshed out doctrine in and of itself. its design is not to give you another topic to fight about but one in which to insist against. If you understand this, I believe you are abusing it here. I don't have a lot of patience if you insist on continuing to do so simply to be novel or different.

In other words, it is simply a stance to oust cult teaching. That's why the RC has always held it as position of 'mystery.' Cults use 'mystery' in a derogatory redress, but it is the same word Paul uses in describing God.

So, now you are going to try and tell me what the creeds say? Go for it but I'm pretty sure there is nothing new under this particular sun.

What does scripture say? "...was with God and was God..." There are 2 to begin with without eisegesis of any sort whatsover.
The inept and scripture rewriters miss it all the time, however, It is so very clear.

There are over 100 threads (or were) from arians and unitarians. Their rancor and disruption is well-known on TOL.
One reason I disdain them, is what they do and attempt to do, in goading the Body.
I really don't like or have time for, trouble-makers who simply want to be trouble-makers, in the Body of Christ.
Show yourself to be in support of the Body of Christ and we'll get along fine. If God has called you to correct our direction and you have genuine concern, we'll be fast friends. There is no time for the other, so I ask cultists (and I guess just disruptors) not to post here. There are plenty of 'disrupting threads' on TOL without this one needing to be another. If you go through it, you'll see it has been disrupted far too often with mundane anti-propoganda already posted elsewhere.

 

[Christian Liberty]

God created the heavens and the earth
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:11 God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." It was so.

We can see from these verses God has created the tree.

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And He is the Head of the body, the church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that He may be pre-eminent in all things.
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell.

We know from Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and earth. Naturally, the first thing we see in Colossians 1:16 is that all things were created through and for Christ.
We have one of two ways to go here: Either these scriptures disagree with one another, or they completely agree with one another. Some would purport a third option: that God created through Christ Jesus, but the problem with such a view is first, that it is not explicitly given from the text. It is a deduction rather than an idea explicitly given. If, as we read in 2 Timothy 3:16, that all scripture is given by God, we should readily discount the second. We then have the dilemma of these two passages completely agreeing with one another and that we have an equation. God and Christ are used interchangeably so as one is not distinguished from the other.

Doubt verses Denial
The RC has called the triune (Trinitarian) view mysterious. That is, there is an embrace of things not entirely explained which carries the idea that we believe first and if possible, answer what questions we may without going beyond the written scriptures such as the third option above does, with deductive reasoning. We do use deductive reasoning to fill in gaps in missing information, but when it comes to scripture, we admit our lack and loosely (tentatively) hold to a working theory/possibility. A mystery allows for doubt. That is, if a thing is not explained, we may wonder whether we are apprehending or able to apprehend information we are given. In our comparison we see God and Christ used interchangeably as creator. There is nothing from the text that would allow us to deny that God and Christ are equated in scripture. If the scripture does not support denial, denial is purposefully against the written word. If the author of Colossians had wanted to make a stark distinction to how the world was created, he didn’t do so. We cannot assume he neglected this. If he intended that we should see distinction, the text does not give any inclination. Knowing full the Genesis account, this one is written blurring the lines between Genesis 1 and Colossians 1:16. Not novel to the Colossians author, the Apostle John states in similar fashion:

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not a thing came into being that has come into being.




God with us
Isa 7:14 So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.
Mat 1:22 Now all this happened so that might be fulfilled that which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb, and will bear a son. And they will call His name Emmanuel," which means, God with us.

If Christ was not God, this prophecy was never fulfilled. Some reinterpret this scripture to mean, “God is for us” eradicating the wording and meaning of this promise.

I just realized this was 2 years old but that Isaiah prophecy was definitely helpful. Thanks

 

[Lon]

That makes no sense. If an OP debates with others he prohibits from debate, he forfeits the conditions in his thread. I'm accustomed to double standards, though.

There you go again, you believe a cultist first. Great first impressions, pps. You aren't starting off on a good foot. They were banned for breaking forum rules. Talk to a mod if you want the real skinny on these matters. Unitarians have a way of seeing truth 'their own way' on everything different from the rest of us, so of course, scripture and everything someone else might say (makes me think they didn't do well in English either). Proof? When/if you become a member, TOL airs infractions publically. It is easily varifiable.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I've seen your song and dance and am not impressed.

Irrelevant.

You 'look' like one of the other Arian/unitarian cultists on this board, even if you aren't one.

And you "look" like a Tritheist, even if you aren't one.

Your 'friends' seem to be gathering 'round you.

Ummm... I only know Krsto, and we don't share the same view on Theology Proper.

Paul, if I read scripture correctly would have you being more careful of your allegiances.

He names Jesus Christ as Lord, and fulfills the basic requirements of salvific faith according to scripture. I don't know his heart, so I can't determine if he's heard the Rhema for salvific faith. Trinity doctrine of any variant is not the threshold standard for salvation.

Your toting the unitarian-goad places you in particularly bad company.

From the tone of the posts, I'd say it's the inverse.

I've been ignoring the lot of them lately.

Okay. That's what that forum feature is for.

They are not a particularly 'happy' group (same reason they stopped existing the first century, it was not because of persecution).

Irrelevant. I'm not one.

They all are sectarian fighters, disrupters, and inept, on this board.

You evidently aren't aware of the near-exponential quantity of Trinity sects; or the many variants of the Trinity doctrine. Otherwise, you'd realize this finger points back at yourself and many others.

One 'seem's to know Greek but I doubt it yet because he doesn't seem to understand English very well but it might not be his first language or something.

Ummm... irrelevant again.

At any rate, that one is a unitarian so my hopes of intelligence are held out yet. He ran away rather quickly.

You esteem yourself quite highly, and others quite lowly. Give me a shot. I'm not Dyohypostatic, but I'm a Trinitarian by most definitions. I'm not Unitarian, Sabellian, Arian, or Binitarian. I qualify to post in this thread. You might find yourself outmatched in scholarship.

So far, this is just ranting. Anything of doctrinal or theological substance beyond ad hominem rhetoric for others?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

'If' you can read it.

I can read it fine.

Most are blow-hards on here and I despise them the lie. Lying is lying.

This is actually the behavior I've seen you demonstrate. But that's irrelevant to doctrine itself. I'm waiting for your exegesis of scripture that verifies O/orthodox Trinity doctrine of three hypostases/one ousia for God.

Assuming you understand creeds better than others.

Likely. I understand them fine in Greek, Latin, and English.

I'm not particularly impressed.

You're interested enough to post and perpetuate a thread.

If you are just splitting 'triune' hairs okay,

I'm not splitting triune hairs. God isn't multiple hypostases, and you can't exegete it from the text. It's eisegetic inference, mostly from easily refutable pronoun usage and presumption from ideology and indoctrination.

but dont' drag cults into your song and dance else you become one.

I haven't dragged anyone into anything. All I did (as a Monohypostatic Trinitarian) was answer your insistence that "an ignorant said the Trinity was eisegetic". It is. If you'd like to exegete multiple hypostases from the inspired text, have at it. I'll wait.

All these others are arian (or unitarian).

Okay. I'm not. Irrelevant. Take that up with them if you choose.

No, it is not. John 1:1 is clearer than clear and you'd have to be (and are) academically inept,

I'm not sure how you could possibly know this one way or the other. It's part of your tyrade, I suppose.

to miss it in any language, including Greek. Language has a structure in all languages. Breaking that structure on purpose is nothing less than lying or at least very much mistaken.

Then stop doing it. John 1:1 makes no reference to an alleged Trinity; though John 1:1 is quite clear that the Logos was and is God. One has to know the meaning of Logos, though. It doesn't automatically mean an additional hypostasis of three that are manufactured by eisegetic inference to fit a pre-supposed concept as doctrine of men.

There is no possible way to read John 1:1 any but one way. :nono:

For ideologized Dyohypostatic Trinitarians, maybe not. But there aren't three hypostases in John 1:1 or anywhere else in the entire inspired text as canonized scripture.

John 1:1 gives us the Logos as being with God and being God (Divine).

F/S/HS are all distinct, eternal, uncreated, concurrent and con-substantial Deity by ontological subsistence and substance; but God is NOT three hypostases in one ousia as a Trinity. God is not three "persons" by any definition in any language.

 

[Lon]

Trinity doctrine of any variant is not the threshold standard for salvation.

Because you say so? :nono: I don't need a Pope, thank you very much.

From the tone of the posts, I'd say it's the inverse.

Uh, this is a triune board. I'm not on their board causing disruption and have no particular desire to do so. A good many websites ban Arians and unitarians fairly quickly. Don't confuse 'not doing so' with approval nor a lack of disruption.

Irrelevant. I'm not one.

No, your tolerance for them is much greater than mine. Kudos but, yes, irrelevant.

You evidently aren't aware of the near-exponential quantity of Trinity sects; or the many variants of the Trinity doctrine. Otherwise, you'd realize this finger points back at yourself and many others.

Arguing 'about' what we all believe isn't anywhere near the same as denial. There is a very good PDF, I believe given by AMR, attached here. Might be a great place to start.

Ummm... irrelevant again.

Not really. It was an opportunity to voice your own Greek prowess. It doesn't matter but I'm always wondering about those who taut the ability.

You esteem yourself quite highly, and others quite lowly.

Yes, I do, but only when the stupid crowd tries to get up and teach. It isn't a general truth so don't try to make it one.

Give me a shot. I'm not Dyohypostatic, but I'm a Trinitarian by most definitions. I'm not Unitarian, Sabellian, Arian, or Binitarian. I qualify to post in this thread. You might find yourself outmatched in scholarship.

No, I won't.
1. Not what this thread is about
2. I've already rejected your 'superior' song and dance. You aren't the cat's meow. I don't really care if I am one back for you.

So far, this is just ranting. Anything of doctrinal or theological substance beyond ad hominem rhetoric for others?

Pot, Kettle. I asked in a few other posts what your intentions are. If you are general pain in the posterior, you need not continue here. I don't like contentious for the sole purpose. If you have a genuine love for Christ and His Body and have something relevant to say, I'd love to hear it. Fair enough?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Um, not too bright, at least today.

Your edification knows no bounds, eh? Don't cut yourself with that tongue, now.

That was the point: learn to read or at least take time to do so? I don't like them. I find them 'not my kind of people.'

Irrelevant. You're commanded to love them. Why don't you? You can stand for your perceived truth without demeaning others personally. Nowhere does scripture speak of us "liking" others.

You fell right into their goading.

Nobody goaded me. Thanks for your concern, though.

You can throw your hat where you like, but if in that crowd, we won't get along.

I don't throw my hat anywhere except with the truth of the Word by the Spirit; and that isn't Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine. I'm not concerned about us "getting along" by somehow appeasing your false doctrine.

I don't have time for purposeful obtusion and self-deception, frankly.

On the contrary, that's actually all you have time for and believe.

I don't want to hate or despise, or abhor - that was the message/point.

Yeah. Well.... then don't.

Oh, and it's 'spite' not 'despite.' One means 'beside the point,' the other falls to 'a desire to annoy' which is recipricol. My ignore button helps me stay away from that. I don't really have malice, it is just something to add to the list. Hate? Ecclesiastes 3:8, but I 'try' not to. Dislike is certainly there. You might want to add "spite" and "despite" to your word-a-day calendar?

Despite is applicable, just as I said. You might want to add "reciprocal" to you word-a-day calendar.

You are ignorant.

LOL.

The triune doctrine was a protection against heresy, not really a fleshed out doctrine in and of itself.

Oh really, now. I've read every Ante-Nicene writing extant. That was one ignorant statement.

its design is not to give you another topic to fight about but one in which to insist against.

Chase that tail.

If you understand this, I believe you are abusing it here. I don't have a lot of patience if you insist on continuing to do so simply to be novel or different.

I understand every last cobweb of Trinity doctrine, both from a theological and historical perspective (along with its many variants and perversions, and nearly a hundred other proposed formulations). Your thread is obtuse and condescending. That's why I responded.

In other words, it is simply a stance to oust cult teaching.

Ummm... nope. It was clearly and concisely formulated, regardless what you think or how you change it to suit yourself and your conceptual ideology.

That's why the RC has always held it as position of 'mystery.'

Are you RCC? I doubt it. Maybe you should hold to all their other doctrines, too.

Cults use 'mystery' in a derogatory redress, but it is the same word Paul uses in describing God.

Yeah. The mystery has been revealed (by His Spirit). Christ in you, the hope of glory. The mystery of the doctrine of man is another story.

So, now you are going to try and tell me what the creeds say? Go for it but I'm pretty sure there is nothing new under this particular sun.

Why don't you check out the Cappadocian Fathers' contribution to the formulation that was finalized at Constantinople in 381AD?

What does scripture say? "

What it doesn't say is "three hypostases ("persons"/subsistences/substances) in one ousia ("being"/substance/essence). That's Trinity doctrine.

...was with God and was God..."

I affirm that. I'm not a Unitarian (or an Arian or a Sabellian or a Binitarian or an Adoptionist or an Ebionitist, etc.). Now what?

There are 2 to begin with without eisegesis of any sort whatsover.

Wow. I guess that's supposed to be astute in some way. The Logos was with and was God. The Son is ontologically Divine. That doesn't presupposed the "how" of a Dyohypostatic Trinity because of that simple "what".

The inept and scripture rewriters miss it all the time, however, It is so very clear.

I haven't missed it. I affirm it.

There are over 100 threads (or were) from arians and unitarians. Their rancor and disruption is well-known on TOL.

As is the rancor and disruption of Dyohypostatic Trinitarians for two millennia in every venue imaginable.

One reason I disdain them, is what they do and attempt to do, in goading the Body.

Sounds like a heart issue. There's repentance for that.

I really don't like or have time for, trouble-makers who simply want to be trouble-makers, in the Body of Christ.

Then desist and stop the double standard.

Show yourself to be in support of the Body of Christ and we'll get along fine.

I support the Body of Christ. I'm not concerned with whether you choose to get along with me. You're not the litmus test for fellowship or truth. Why do presume you are?

If God has called you to correct our direction and you have genuine concern, we'll be fast friends.

Will we? Are you correctable? I don't sense so in the least.

There is no time for the other, so I ask cultists (and I guess just disruptors) not to post here.

But you yourself are the source of venom and vitriol. That's inconsistent, to be kind.

There are plenty of 'disrupting threads' on TOL without this one needing to be another.

I dropped by to read your thread. I noticed your reference to someone (me) insisting the Dyohypostatic Trinity was eisegetic, calling me an ignorant. That's why I responded to get an exegesis from you, since you declare it's not eisegetic. Simplez. Provide the exegesis for God as three hypostases in one ousia. That's very straight-forward and not obtuse in the least.

If you go through it, you'll see it has been disrupted far too often with mundane anti-propoganda already posted elsewhere.

And likely rightly so. I see more ad hominem from you than from them. By far.

My only intent is to illuminate that the Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine is eisegetic, and that most professing Trinitarians are actually functional Triadists rather than taking the Classical O/orthodox Trinity position. It's a conceptualization of English presumption based on dilution of indoctrination without anything more than assent to Creeds and outlines or statements.

I'd just like someone to exegete three hypostases in one ousia from scripture or admit DyoHypo Trinity is eisegetic with candor and honesty. It's not hard.

 

[Krsto]

Arguing 'about' what we all believe isn't anywhere near the same as denial. There is a very good PDF, I believe given by AMR, attached here. Might be a great place to start.

I think you forgot to link?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I just realized this was 2 years old but that Isaiah prophecy was definitely helpful. Thanks

That Isaiah prophecy is flawed.

LA

 

[Lon]

I can read it fine.

This is actually the behavior I've seen you demonstrate.

Patently false. I can scan my grades for Greek classes fairly quickly, among other adept ways of proving the point.

If you mean 'bad behavior,' take a look at your posts on here before I ever talked to you, and a number of them at that. You came to this thread.

But that's irrelevant to doctrine itself.

No, in point of fact, it is not irrelevant. "You keep using that word, I dono-think-it means what you think it means."
Being able to read scriputure is more than relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm waiting for your exegesis of scripture that verifies O/orthodox Trinity doctrine of three hypostases/one ousia for God.

Again, read AMR's PDf attached to this thread. It is there to the right a little bit when you see this thread listed under the 'forum' tab as well as linked by me. On top of that, John 1:1 was already posted so I see this as ingenuine. You might have to do a bit of leg work yourself, however, because I can't read minds after this point.

Likely. I understand them fine in Greek, Latin, and English.

Greek, some Hebrew, a bit of German.

You're interested enough to post and perpetuate a thread.

Before you ever got here. The 'impressed' was seeing others attempting to do similar 'hair-splitting.' I don't mind a good orthodoxy discussion but I'm not ready to oust uneducated triune believers with wrong views. I don't fall into any of the categorical heresies listed by the given link though I have slipped on the tight-rope walk from time to time, in attempted explanation or illustrations that just don't work. We need to avoid the heresies, not really worry (imo) about falling as we try and describe our uncomparable God. They are failed attempts but I am shouting 'encouragement' from the side-lines, not "boo hiss."

I'm not splitting triune hairs. God isn't multiple hypostases, and you can't exegete it from the text. It's eisegetic inference, mostly from easily refutable pronoun usage and presumption from ideology and indoctrination.

God is Spirit so I'm not too hung up on splitting hairs over 'substance.' Our language is inadequate to task. As long as one is trying to avoid the blatant heresies, I'm not too hung up on immature or wrong answers.
To me, it looks like classic hair-splitting unless you are concerned regarding the heresies listed in the PDF. If so, :up:

I haven't dragged anyone into anything. All I did (as a Monohypostatic Trinitarian) was answer your insistence that "an ignorant said the Trinity was eisegetic". It is. If you'd like to exegete multiple hypostases from the inspired text, have at it. I'll wait.

It is ignorant. The triune view is not eisegetic. How do you explain yourself being some form of triune if it is eisegetic? I find the idea exegetical and defensible without apology or restraint.

I'm not sure how you could possibly know this one way or the other. It's part of your tyrade, I suppose.

No, your ignorance is showing. How can something be both unless it conveys such triune information and notions? Answer? It can't. Why don't you know this? It isn't hidden discussion? Read a bit of this thread.

Then stop doing it. John 1:1 makes no reference to an alleged Trinity; though John 1:1 is quite clear that the Logos was and is God. One has to know the meaning of Logos, though. It doesn't automatically mean an additional hypostasis of three that are manufactured by eisegetic inference to fit a pre-supposed concept as doctrine of men.

Ah, your motto says that. It doesn't mean anything. Saying "just because a large group says it is true, doesn't make it so" isn't saying anything. Everyone knows this. However, the majority, statistically, is nearly always right (food for thought).

For ideologized Dyohypostatic Trinitarians, maybe not. But there aren't three hypostases in John 1:1 or anywhere else in the entire inspired text as canonized scripture.

John 1:1 gives us the Logos as being with God and being God (Divine).

F/S/HS are all distinct, eternal, uncreated, concurrent and con-substantial Deity by ontological subsistence and substance; but God is NOT three hypostases in one ousia as a Trinity. God is not three "persons" by any definition in any language.

Eh, splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. We are dealing with 3 things that makes it hard for God to communicate to man who and what He is:
1) we are finite or limited in what we can absorb. Infinite cannot fit into finite. We are going to get a limited grasp of this. If you are triune, great.
2) Material universe - we tend to not have a good grasp on what is not 'concrete sequential' to our thinking and a good many of us cannot think beyond to metaphysical concepts. I can (to some degree or another), but give those folks a break!
3) Language - which is also finite and also stuck orbiting the 'physical,' and has difficulty expressing any form of infinite, isn't adequate but God chose it to express Himself. The tri-une view is a theological and biblical construct that sees only one God (-une), and yet the Father, Son, and Spirit are Him (Tri-). For me, triunity is the better term because 'trinity' is, I agree, at least somewhat inadequate but is historically relevant.

It seems you are arguing along the same lines as this article. Give it a quick read? Is this your position/what you are trying to discuss?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Because you say so? :nono: I don't need a Pope, thank you very much.

Nobody else needs a Pope, either. You're the one insisting Trinity doctrine is the vital threshhold for salvific faith. The burden of proof rests upon you for that restriction from the text.

Uh, this is a triune board. I'm not on their board causing disruption and have no particular desire to do so.

That's just because Trinity is the default and it's leveraged.

A good many websites ban Arians and unitarians fairly quickly.

And I understood this one doesn't. Other boards are irrelevant. Either way, I'm neither of those.

Don't confuse 'not doing so' with approval nor a lack of disruption.

I don't need to assess that.

No, your tolerance for them is much greater than mine. Kudos but, yes, irrelevant.

Yeah, because I don't automatically preclude others from faith in Christ because they don't adhere to the errors of DyoHypo Trinity. It's a reflection of God's grace and a practice of His mercy.

Arguing 'about' what we all believe isn't anywhere near the same as denial.

That's just shades and degrees. We're not talking about Muslims or Buddhists or New Agers or Mystical World Religion Occultists, etc. We're talking about interpretation of Theology Proper from an inspired text that is only implicit about the constitution of God. Since the DyoHypo Trinity got it wrong, too; then others have that same margin for their faith. It's not as simple as Theology Proper = salvation.

There is a very good PDF, I believe given by AMR, attached here. Might be a great place to start.

Start for what? I started 15 years ago after being lost as a DyoHypo Trinitarian for 28 years. After reading every Ante-Nicene writing and studying the Greek text, I doubt someone's PDF is going to tell me much except someone's concept derived from ideology and inference.

Not really. It was an opportunity to voice your own Greek prowess. It doesn't matter but I'm always wondering about those who taut the ability.

I don't taunt anything. I'm a reasonably astute student of the Biblical languages. I'm neither fluent nor a scholar, but I know my way around the grammar with syntax and semantics, etc. I'm nothing more or less than I am in that regard.

Yes, I do, but only when the stupid crowd tries to get up and teach. It isn't a general truth so don't try to make it one.

No DyoHypo Trini should make such statements. It's self-impugning.

No, I won't.

Of course you won't. It's impossible.

1. Not what this thread is about

The thread is about Trinity doctrine. An exegesis would be a foundational basic, and preferable to rhetoric.

2. I've already rejected your 'superior' song and dance.

Irrelevant. You've accepted error, so it doesn't matter what you reject.

You aren't the cat's meow. I don't really care if I am one back for you.

I'm not the one meowing. I responded. And I simply asked for an exegesis of your position. It won't be forthcoming.

Pot, Kettle.

...which means you're whichever one of those by admission. LOL.

I asked in a few other posts what your intentions are.

I told you. To set straight the error of DyoHypo Trinity doctrine, and to reveal that most modern professing Trinitarians are actually functional Triadists.

If you are general pain in the posterior, you need not continue here.

I responded to you and your accusations and presuppositions, not vice versa.

I don't like contentious for the sole purpose.

That's tough to believe of someone who started a provocative thread with constant tyrades against views you insist aren't allowed to be expressed.

If you have a genuine love for Christ and His Body and have something relevant to say, I'd love to hear it. Fair enough?

It's very fair. I just don't think it's genuine. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you don't seem correctable in the least.

Here...

The problem with the Dyohypostatic Trinity is that it too quickly moved to be cataphatically declared without eliminating every other possibility apophatically. In the face of much pressure from competing views both within and without the faith; the process was both hurried and contrived, not to mention the political sidebars of Roman influence to varying degree.

(Cataphatic is what something IS; apophatic is what something IS NOT.)

The ultimate formulation utilized Sophistric terms in an effort to quell Neo-Platonism along with other views. The problem is that these terms can't be accounted for in scripture. So we're left with a convoluted eisegetic inference to conform Theology Proper to presupposed dialectic consensus of men instead of the didactic truth of the Word by the Spirit.

And there's no real ministry of reconciliation for all the erroneous views (including DyoHypo Trinity) to be conformed to the central objective truth of scripture. So Trinitarians leverage O/orthodoxy and take a position of "might makes right". It doesn't.

God is NOT three hypostases in one ousia. A concept can't stand alone. There must be a thorough exegesis for exposition of any view from the text. There aren't three hypostases in the text for God; and ousia has to be carefully gleaned, even though it's still misused by the DyoHypo Trini view.

All I've ever asked is that professing Trinitarians know their own doctrine, especially if they're going to be so presumptuous as to judge others' salvation by Theology Proper.

 

[Lon]

Hi Pneuma, This is getting long. Pick and choose what you want to respond to. A bit of it is still posturing. I'll be glad when that portion of discussion is over, but quite a bit of it is 'good-natured' from me at this point though still a bit 'slappy.'

Your edification knows no bounds, eh? Don't cut yourself with that tongue, now.

Think "scapel" not "stiletto?"
Only one of them gets "Don't come near me with that thing," though I suppose I'm weird when okay with a surgical instrument (don't think so, but there it is)?

Irrelevant. You're commanded to love them. Why don't you?
You can stand for your perceived truth without demeaning others personally. Nowhere does scripture speak of us "liking" others.

A spade is a spade. Bedside manner is important but not as important as what necessarily has to be done. To me, Bed-side-manner isn't necessarily 'love.' God uses both, especially where stubborn blockheaded cults are concerned.

Nobody goaded me. Thanks for your concern, though.

▲Then you goaded them ▲ See 'em? Pick your poison.

I don't throw my hat anywhere except twith the ruth of the Word by the Spirit; and that isn't Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine. I'm not concerned about us "getting along" by somehow appeasing your false doctrine.

1. hair-splitting to me, so far
2. Have you read what I believe in thread?
3. Opinions are nice, but what's your 'informed' assessment (the only one I really care about)?

On the contrary, that's actually all you have time for and believe.

Was that a stilletto or a scalpel? Just asking.

I affirm that. I'm not a Unitarian (or an Arian or a Sabellian or a Binitarian or an Adoptionist or an Ebionitist, etc.). Now what?

We'll pick this one up from the last post I made to you. :up:
Now for a few formatting (among other kinds of) problems now, on your part:

Oh really, now. I've read every Ante-Nicene writing extant. That was one ignorant statement.

I've read a good many of them. So and what?

Chase that tail.

Oh. I see you tried to answer "so" and "what" but its no more profound or clear than when I just asked it. "I" must be the uneducated one with such profound explanation. :think: Forgive me if I 'think' at the moment it is "you" failing to communicate? (thanks if you'll give this one to me or "oh well" if not) - second attempt:

I understand every last cobweb of Trinity doctrine, both from a theological and historical perspective (along with its many variants and perversions, and nearly a hundred other proposed formulations).

LOL, you are better than I am and I've really studied this stuff.
Actually, you'll have to remember why I sincerely doubt such is possible. It goes something like: "you're finite, I'm finite..." Was this your doctorate work? Shoot, write a book. If nothing else, the unitarians need to read it but if it is within my budget, I might be interested. It isn't, however, something I desire to 'trounce you under,' over. As far as I can tell, we'd mostly argue whether scripture exegetically provides a triune model or not, I'd expect? (just a guess at this point) I'm up for that debate and think it'd be a good one-on-one in the future between I or another. Probably titled: "Does scripture imply or clearly express the Triune doctrine?"

Attempt #3

Your thread is obtuse and condescending. That's why I responded.

Awe! That's cute how you used my same words like that. You are original, intelligent, and inspired! You know, for a guy that seems to wonder why I don't just 'love' unitarians, you don't seem to model anything different nor provide anything of substance to back up your own supposed prowess. Did you know that? I just thought I'd point that out. It's just an observation so take it as a freebie, but honestly, if you are going to be just like me, then I'm going to have to like you. Are you smarter than I first gave you credit for? I can learn to like you.

Are you RCC? I doubt it.

No, half my family is.

Maybe you should hold to all their other doctrines, too.

I don't have nearly the problem you probably do.

Why don't you check out the Cappadocian Fathers' contribution to the formulation that was finalized at Constantinople in 381AD?

I don't know if this is going to come as a blow to you or not:

In order to understand and appreciate correctly the contribution of the Cappadocians to the doctrine of the Trinity we must first set the historical context. What were the Cappadocians reacting against? Why did they take the view they took, and how did they try to respond to the challenges of their contemporaries? After trying to give an answer to these questions we may consider the lasting significance of these Fathers' theology for other times.
- source

Sound familiar? ▼▼▼

The triune doctrine was a protection against heresy, not really a fleshed out doctrine in and of itself. its design is not to give you another topic to fight about but one in which to insist against...
In other words, it is simply a stance to oust cult teaching. That's why the RC has always held it as position of 'mystery.' Cults use 'mystery' in a derogatory redress, but it is the same word Paul uses in describing God.

Back to better formatting (and thank you if you can do it again in the future).

Wow. I guess that's supposed to be astute in some way. The Logos was with and was God. The Son is ontologically Divine. That doesn't presupposed the "how" of a Dyohypostatic Trinity because of that simple "what".

No. I 'think' I know where you are going with this.
2 observations:
1) the unitarians/arians aren't going to be happy here with you, afterall (they jump with joy when they think another of their heretics is coming to TOL).
2) I still think it a bit of hair splitting but I've already spelled out why in the previous thread. I'm just not going to get too hung up on 'essence' or 'substance' words. Both imply 'physical' notions so I've no problem with you rejecting them, persay. These just aren't adequate terms so I think I have to agree with that. Can we do better? Sometimes but this particular is not easy. If you really are doing master's or doctorate work, you should think about the service to the Body instead of wasting time on argument here (but again, and forgive, I see this as hairsplitting - it may be necessary but I haven't seen that yet).

I haven't missed it. I affirm it.

His blessings, but you are starting to mellow me out from the verbal fight I was expecting
:up:

As is the rancor and disruption of Dyohypostatic Trinitarians for two millennia in every venue imaginable.

:think: Maybe I don't get emotionally caught up in past debates like I should

I'm just not seeing this :nono:

Sounds like a heart issue. There's repentance for that.

Yes, but they have to turn to Him first, or were you talking about me? If that be the case, I think you mixed up. If you are passionate about truth within the body, I'm exponentially so about those who would ignore the whole of the Body and cause these rifts and fights. You'll see, over time, they have no problem correcting and fighting among themselves either. This thread is 'supposed to be' a reprieve from that. Look the thread over and look again to your statement just above. We all get along really well in this thread among us. I don't think your above observation holds true. I'm just not seeing it, at least this century (the time "I'm" living in).

Then desist and stop the double standard.

You say dumb things, at times. I am not on an arian/unitarian board nor am I going to them to cause trouble.

I support the Body of Christ. I'm not concerned with whether you choose to get along with me. You're not the litmus test for fellowship or truth. Why do presume you are?

Yeah, I am. Who? A member of the Body with all the rights and priveledges thereof. Learn your own place in the Body. What you just said was also dumb.

Will we? Are you correctable? I don't sense so in the least.

Your problem. Eye, log, splinter.

But you yourself are the source of venom and vitriol. That's inconsistent, to be kind.

You are strange. This is a triune board. They are coming here, I'm not going there. I even asked them to 'refrain' from disrupting here. This isn't 'supposed' to be a contentious thread. I 'did' post a concern about a post of yours because the doctrinal point was important. It wasn't to drag you over here but to help them in discussing the topic with you and unit-arians over in that thread. This is more of a 'companion' or reference thread to triune posters.

I dropped by to read your thread. I noticed your reference to someone (me) insisting the Dyohypostatic Trinity was eisegetic, calling me an ignorant.

You are ignorant. Read it again. My contention was against the 'eisegetic' comment and why that was wrong. It had nothing to do with your specific doctrinal position. My contention is over eisegesis vs exegesis.

That's why I responded to get an exegesis from you, since you declare it's not eisegetic. Simplez. Provide the exegesis for God as three hypostases in one ousia. That's very straight-forward and not obtuse in the least.

Again, you are going to have to do some leg work. You specifically were talking about, and perhaps I missed the point, the triune doctrine not being exegetical. My only contention was that it was. Why was this the contention? Because arians jumped all over it and read it the same way. Therefore, a reference thread necessarily needs to address that concern with information regarding it. I've no problem discussing the details here. That's what it is here for.

And likely rightly so. I see more ad hominem from you than from them. By far.

Sorry, no. "Ignorant" is not an ad hominem. "Missing the mark" is assesement, not attacking the messenger. "Sorry. You lose. Good day, sir." - Willy Wonka

My only intent is to illuminate that the Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine is eisegetic, and that most professing Trinitarians are actually functional Triadists rather than taking the Classical O/orthodox Trinity position. It's a conceptualization of English presumption based on dilution of indoctrination without anything more than assent to Creeds and outlines or statements.

I'd just like someone to exegete three hypostases in one ousia from scripture or admit DyoHypo Trinity is eisegetic with candor and honesty. It's not hard.

The idea certainly, is there. The gospel of John carries the equities very well, but I'm not really shook up with you not liking 'subtance' or 'essence' persay. Hopefully you are adressing this from the other post already, but how much deeper does your disagreement go than definition here?