ECT Our triune God

[Nang]

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

Did God need to build Himself a house or place to exist?

Do you have any Scriptural proof He necessarily did so?


That is nonsense . . .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There are three "heavens" revealed in Scripture.

Exactly. And they're ALL created. If not, God didn't create ALL. (What was that about nut jobs? Are you a pecan or walnut?)

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.

Now you openly confess that your God couldn't and didn't create the eternity of the heavenly realm. LOL.

Where? Which?

The third heaven. The one you insist is uncreated just like God Himself. He couldn't and didn't create it according to you.

This is what's wrong with the Church. Conceptual indoctrination with no scriptural support whatsoever.

Where? which?

Same.

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

LOL. So God is in a "where" as a "place" that He couldn't and didn't create. Yep, that's what most erroneously believe and insist with every fiber of their being because they've been hopelessly indoctrinated.

God is not eternity. Eternity is not UNcreated. Only God is UNcreated. Eternity had a beginning. And inception. It's everlasting.

That is because It is not created.

And there you have it. The eternity of heaven is UNcreated. An immanent and impotent God couldn't and didn't create ALL.

Eternity is not part of God's creation.

Give us some scriptural evidence. I'll provide mine in response.

It transcends the material.

But God doesn't transcend IT in your false doctrine.

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

That's why I referred to it as some weird elevated form of Pantheism or Panentheism.

You are trying to confuse the eternal with the material.

No. You're trying to confuse the eternal with the immanent heavenly.

Why?

You're the one who needs to answer "why" for your immanent and impotent God.

The one true and living God created ALL, including the eternity of heaven as His everlasting abode and ours by faith.

Our faith hypostasis believes the singular hypostasis within the Rhema of the Logos.

Many have merely heard "A" Rhema, not "The" Rhema. The Rhema is the content; the subject matter; the thing spoken ABOUT by the Logos. Many haven't heard for faith to come.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Did God need to build Himself a house or place to exist?

Nope. He's SELF-existent and SELF-subsistent. He created the eternity of heaven for His plan and purpose to be in communion with redeemed mankind for everlasting.

Do you have any Scriptural proof He necessarily did so?

I most certainly do. I'm waiting for your arrogant condescension to provide proof of your immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create eternity of heaven.

That is nonsense . . .

LOL. Yeah, it must be because you're so capable of expressing Theology Proper and the biblical langauges lexically.

(I now see this wasn't directed at me. Oh, well. Same answers apply.)

 

[Nang]

Exactly. And they're ALL created. If not, God didn't create ALL. (What was that about nut jobs? Are you a pecan or walnut?)

Eternity = God's heavenly realm is uncreate.

Now you openly confess that your God couldn't and didn't create the eternity of the heavenly realm. LOL.

God no more created His realm, than He created Himself.

The third heaven. The one you insist is uncreated just like God Himself. He couldn't and didn't create it according to you.

This is what's wrong with the Church. Conceptual indoctrination with no scriptural support whatsoever.

You are arguing against me without offering any scriptural basis at all.

Prove to me that God created eternity, which is His spiritual realm.

LOL. So God is in a "where" as a "place" that He couldn't and didn't create. Yep, that's what most erroneously believe and insist with every fiber of their being because they've been hopelessly indoctrinated.

God is not eternity. Eternity is not UNcreated. Only God is UNcreated. Eternity had a beginning. And inception. It's everlasting.

Stop laughing and offer biblical proof that "eternity had a beginning and inception."

Where in the Holy Scriptures is there revelation of an "everlasting eternity?" No such language to be found in the bible.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It depends. I think/predict, you are honing a dull area,

If I understand you, it's the understatement OF eternity. LOL.

It's so dull that nobody has ever bothered to exegete that eternity is created. The processions of the Logos and the Spirit were from God's transcendent self-subsistence/-existence into the heavenly immanence of created eternity. Ultimately, the Logos was embodied in flesh within the earthly immanence of the cosmos.

rather than exposing a whole-sale fully embraced heresy.

It's a significant omission that is shared by ALL opposing historical God-models that are compensating to express various events and actions, etc. There is a demarcation between the utter transcendence of God's self-subsistence/-existence and the CREATED eternity of heaven, which is everlasting NOT eternal.

The two-fold singualar hypostasis is the Pneuma and the Logos. The former is God's omnipresence in the created realmS, and the Logos is God's finite point of "personal" presence in the created realmS. There's more to it, but I'll save the rest for your response.

I 'suspect' you are triune in nearly the same sense I am.

No, I doubt it. The Logos wasn't the Son until the Incarnation. The Logos was the externalized substance of God's Divinity within the Rhema, which was His finite point of localized presence distinct from His transcendence.

I 'think' you make some of your own problems and conflicts by coming to laypersons' boards with lexicology, etc., but we'll see.

Of course I have to come to the boards with lexicology. It's the only means of digging the truth out of the original text to refute the DyoHypo error.

 

[Nang]

He created the eternity of heaven for His plan and purpose to be in communion with redeemed mankind for everlasting.

Nope.

God dealt in His heavenly, eternal realm BEFORE He created.

God created the material heavens and earth for the purpose of communing with and redeeming men.

Redeemed men are promised everlasting LIFE, that comes from the life of Christ, in Christ, and God's realm of existence was not a necessary factor in the salvation of men.

The Covenant Promise is one of life in Christ, first and foremost, before promises of sharing heavenly glory.

Everlasting life is found in Christ, alone . . . not in any "created" place, realm, church, or works.

 

[Nang]

The Logos wasn't the Son until the Incarnation.

This is gross error, blasphemous, and anti-christian. (I John 4:1-6)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Eternity = God's heavenly realm is uncreate.

Yeah, you said that. Many have said that. Where's the scriptural evidence beyond concept and speculation?

God no more created His realm, than He created Himself.

Yeah, your God was too immanent and impotent to create eternity of heaven. He's subordinate to it. Contained. Constrained. LOL.

You are arguing against me without offering any scriptural basis at all.

I have clear scriptural exegesis to support my view. I've insisted you provide YOUR scriptural evidence since you've been so arrogant and condescending. Go ahead. "You are arguing against me without offering any scriptural basis at all", Nang. LOLOL.

Prove to me that God created eternity, which is His spiritual realm.

I'll gladly do so. But for your petulence, show me yours first. LOL.

Stop laughing and offer biblical proof that "eternity had a beginning and inception."

I shall. After you. Mine's locked and loaded. All you have is preferred conceptual speculation and assumption.

Where in the Holy Scriptures is there revelation of an "everlasting eternity?" No such language to be found in the bible.

In several places. Support your claims.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nope.

God dealt in His heavenly, eternal realm BEFORE He created.

God created the material heavens and earth for the purpose of communing with and redeeming men.

Redeemed men are promised everlasting LIFE, that comes from the life of Christ, in Christ, and God's realm of existence was not a necessary factor in the salvation of men.

The Covenant Promise is one of life in Christ, first and foremost, before promises of sharing heavenly glory.

Everlasting life is found in Christ, alone . . . not in any "created" place, realm, church, or works.

No scripture. As always. Concept from a Triadist. :wave:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is gross error, blasphemous, and anti-christian. (I John 4:1-6)

Says the Triadist. The Logos and the Son are co-terminous. There is no distinction between them.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm waiting for scriptural evidence that eternity of heaven is UNcreated, and that God was too immanent and impotent to create ALL. (Odd that anyone would actually argue FOR God being impotent.)

 

[Nang]

I'm waiting for scriptural evidence that eternity of heaven is UNcreated, and that God was too immanent and impotent to create ALL. (Odd that anyone would actually argue FOR God being impotent.)

You want me to prove your negative, that is based upon NOTHING?!

:crackup:

I'm waiting for your biblical evidence that God created His own realm of existence.

 

[Lon]

If I understand you, it's the understatement OF eternity. LOL.

It's so dull that nobody has ever bothered to exegete that eternity is created. The processions of the Logos and the Spirit were from God's transcendent self-subsistence/-existence into the heavenly immanence of created eternity. Ultimately, the Logos was embodied in flesh within the earthly immanence of the cosmos.

Alpha and Omega are expressions of no beginning and no end and are part of His character. To me, this (potentially) is like trying to say that God created 'love.' Aspects of His character are uncreated and thus I see 'no duration' as a characteristic of God. I'd think you do to and why you are differentiating the terms eternal and everlasting, but such requires more explanation. I have a lot of patience, but that's me and only because I know I can do nothing about it thus must have it. ▼ See just below for more pertinent information regarding this part of the presentation on this particular website▼

It's a significant omission that is shared by ALL opposing historical God-models that are compensating to express various events and actions, etc. There is a demarcation between the utter transcendence of God's self-subsistence/-existence and the CREATED eternity of heaven, which is everlasting NOT eternal.

If I'm following, you differentiate between eternal and everlasting but such is going to be difficult in conveyance, on this particular website. I do understand that eternal is a non-durative immutable characteristic, but you are on an Open Theology board. I am not an Open Theist but you are in conversation with one or two that are and this is their board. They deny God is non/super/supra-durative (eternal) but is an everlasting being (and bound by it, oddly). So, I see such distinction as incredibly necessary but such discussion potentially boggles minds quickly when you have folks from such diverse backgrounds representative here on the matter.

The two-fold singular hypostasis is the Pneuma and the Logos. The former is God's omnipresence in the created realmS, and the Logos is God's finite point of "personal" presence in the created realmS. There's more to it, but I'll save the rest for your response.
The Logos wasn't the Son until the Incarnation. The Logos was the externalized substance of God's Divinity within the Rhema, which was His finite point of localized presence distinct from His transcendence.

Awkward again, even if trying to correct another awkward from another.
Aren't you binding God's identity by conception (a time constraint)? Wasn't He Son before the foundation of the world? Did an 'even't and 'moment' bestow sonship alone? I believe you need to rethink this quite a bit.
Notice John 3:17 and Galatians 4:4 and 1 John 4:10 where "the Son" is sent into the world. See Hebrews 13:8 as well. If whatever you believe denies eternal sonship, I think you've crossed the line.

Of course I have to come to the boards with lexicology. It's the only means of digging the truth out of the original text to refute the DyoHypo error.

I'm all for exacting terms, but I'm not convinced lexicology is the only way to go. Avoiding such does require more description, thus more words/lengtheir posts. I suppose such keeps post length down to begin with but lexicology on laymen boards isn't first-choice. If 'forums' are your presentation choice I'm not sure... I'd probably write to Biblio-Sacra with an article submission or something.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is gross error, blasphemous, and anti-christian. (I John 4:1-6)

LOL. Jesus Christ HAS come in the flesh. The Son is the Logos is the Son.

You just interpret this like all indoctrinated and ideologized Trintarians that "an eternal 'person' has come in the flesh". There aren't three hypostases ("persons") for God in scripture. LOL.

Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. God manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh. God and Savior. The fullness of the Theotes bodily.

Not one hint of docetism or createdness. But not an unscriptural second-of-three hypostases, for sure.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You want me to prove your negative, that is based upon NOTHING?!

No. I want you to prove your OWN positive and repeated assertions that heaven IS UNcreated. You can't.

I'm waiting for your biblical evidence that God created His own realm of existence.

God is SELF-existent. He doesn't need "His own realm of existence". That's your foul heresy speaking. God is NOT dependent upon a realm to exist. THAT's blasphemous and unChristian.

I just want to show you have NOTHING before I provide the scriptural evidence for the truth.

 

[Lon]

LOL. Jesus Christ HAS come in the flesh. The Son is the Logos is the Son.

You just interpret this like all indoctrinated and ideologized Trintarians that "an eternal 'person' has come in the flesh". There aren't three hypostases ("persons") for God in scripture. LOL.

Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. God manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh. God and Savior. The fullness of the Theotes bodily.

Not one hint of docetism or createdness. But not an unscriptural second-of-three hypostases, for sure.

I think you too, caught in phyical conceptions (along with the rest of us, and another reason finite is limited, imo, in our language as well). Becoming incarnate is no (ontological) change for God. Saying eternal sonship or denying eternal sonship still must conceptually distance from finite constraint. Jesus said He had glory with the Father before (which doesn't matter and is not subjective if He is eternal) incarnation. Such denotes distinction, prior(which is negated or rather superceded by an eternal existence) to incarnation. That distinction is denoted as "Son," among other terms and were bestowed without time constraints (actually weren't 'bestowed' at all but are eternal characteristics of His being- again not under or subservient to time or duration). He is relational to, but unconstrained by limitations, including the physical and durative constraints that apply to us alone.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Alpha and Omega are expressions of no beginning and no end and are part of His character. To me, this (potentially) is like trying to say that God created 'love.'

I'm not speaking of eternality, the intrinsic trait or characteristic, etc. I'm speaking of eternity. God INhabiteth eternity. I'll ultimately end up posting an exegesis.

God didn't create His "eternality". God created eternity. He tents there. It's His abode. It's not an intrinsic and inate internal constitutent attribute. Eternality is that.

Aspects of His character are uncreated and thus I see 'no duration' as a characteristic of God.

There's duration and elapsation and sequentiality and perpetuity in heaven. Eternity is a place. And abode for God. It's not God. It's not inherently Himself. It's external to Him. He spoke it into existence and filled it with His Pneuma and His Logos. He EX-pressed and EX-haled His Spirit and His Word when/as He created eternity of the heavenly realm.

I'd think you do to and why you are differentiating the terms eternal and everlasting,

I don't differentiate according to Vines. He's far inferior to Zodhiates. Doc Z clearly and correctly indicates that aidios is eternal (without beginning or end) and aionios is everlasting (without end). Eternity had an inception. God's aidios dunamis and Theiotes (and by inclusion, His Theotes) are eternal. All things aionios are everlasting and had an inception.

Your "eternal" life had a beginning. It's everlasting, without end. That's aionios.

but such requires more explanation. I have a lot of patience, but that's me and only because I know I can do nothing about it thus must have it. ▼ See just below for more pertinent information regarding this part of the presentation on this particular website▼

Where?

If I'm following, you differentiate between eternal and everlasting but such is going to be difficult in conveyance, on this particular website.

Subjective opinion doesn't affect objective truth. This site is irrelevant.

I do understand that eternal is a non-durative immutable characteristic, but you are on an Open Theology board.

But not in the Open Theology section.

I am not an Open Theist but you are in conversation with one or two that are and this is their board.

So? That doesn't change the truth or that they're wrong.

They deny God is non/super/supra-durative (eternal) but is an everlasting being (and bound by it, oddly).

That's not even God. I know what they profess. Every Open Theist I encounter and engage leaves it behind.

So, I see such distinction as incredibly necessary but such discussion potentially boggles minds quickly when you have folks from such diverse backgrounds representative here on the matter.

Too bad there's such gross error.

Awkward again, even if trying to correct another awkward from another.
Aren't you binding God's identity by conception (a time constraint)?

No. The Logos and the Son are co-terminous.

Wasn't He Son before the foundation of the world?

Check the Greek.

Did an 'even't and 'moment' bestow sonship alone?

No. Conception fulfilled/manifested it.

I believe you need to rethink this quite a bit.

You don't really know what it means in overall context. Unless and until one sees the createdness of eternity and understands the Rhema, it always looks like something else.

Notice John 3:17 and Galatians 4:4 and 1 John 4:10 where "the Son" is sent into the world. See Hebrews 13:8 as well. If whatever you believe denies eternal sonship, I think you've crossed the line.

The eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. I present the ONLY Eternal Son. The DyoHypo Son is eternally UNbegotten. And via an INternal procession. You don't understand the nature of this gross error. Maybe you never will.

You don't seem to be tracking on the actual context.

I'm all for exacting terms, but I'm not convinced lexicology is the only way to go. Avoiding such does require more description, thus more words/lengtheir posts. I suppose such keeps post length down to begin with but lexicology on laymen boards isn't first-choice. If 'forums' are your presentation choice I'm not sure... I'd probably write to Biblio-Sacra with an article submission or something.

I hadn't intended to unfold it in such detail, actually. I just came here to present an apophatic challenge to the DyoHypo error. There's really no way to get to this depth without exclusively presenting it via lexical expression.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think you too, caught in phyical conceptions (along with the rest of us, and another reason finite is limited, imo, in our language as well). Becoming incarnate is no (ontological) change for God. Saying eternal sonship or denying eternal sonship still must conceptually distance from finite constraint. Jesus said He had glory with the Father before (which doesn't matter and is not subjective if He is eternal) incarnation.

This entire line of reasoning and demand is strictly from the multiple hypostases view of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. It's not a demand and reasoning of scripture. It's according to preconceived notion.

I've said it several times. The eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. They're co-terminous. There is NO second of three hypostasis as an "eternal Son" in the sense that O/ortho Trinity presents it. This is exactly what gave us the error by ignorantly omitting the creation of eternity.

Your entire contention is founded upon multiple hypostases and an UNcreated eternity. It's fallacious.

Such denotes distinction, prior(which is negated or rather superceded by an eternal existence) to incarnation.

Yep. As the Logos, which is co-terminous with the Son. There isn't any difference. Except yours has to have multiple unscriptural hypostases and an UNcreated eternity.

That distinction is denoted as "Son," among other terms and were bestowed without time constraints (actually weren't 'bestowed' at all but are eternal characteristics of His being- again not under or subservient to time or duration). He is relational to, but unconstrained by limitations, including the physical and durative constraints that apply to us alone.

More conceptual demands to support multiple hypostases. The Son is the Logos is the Son. They're co-terminous. But there's a clear distinction between a hypostasis and a prosopon. The latter is the outer of the inner for the former. The prosopon is the personal presence and appearance of the hypostasis in the sight of another.

An unfathered Son is illegitimate. I present the only legitimate, eternally-begotten Son.

 

[godrulz]

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.

What are you talking about?! Are you attacking straw man caricatures of sound theology?!

 

[godrulz]

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.

Do you have formal training or are you self-taught?

Has AMR tried to reason with you?