ECT Our triune God

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Addition

Addition

After re-reading the last post this morning I would like to add the following:

At Jesus' baptism we see presented the three that are one. There is both oneness by agreement and threeness by representative, revelational identity.

In this God is adhering to the letter in all things and especially to the establishment by two or three witnesses. This is not valid except there be 2 or 3 wills in agreement.

The Son has a will: 1John 5:14KJV, Luke 22:42KJV,
The Father has a will: Luke 11:2KJV, John 5:30KJV
The Holy Spirit (by inference) has a will: Heb 10:15-16KJV, Eph 1:13KJV

The agreement of wills in infinite detail shows infinite unity but does not necessarily dictate sameness. John 17:22KJV
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
If we are going to hold to 3 in 1, we need to designate (and this information exists) a special definition of 'Person' (as it applies to the doctrine of the Trinity) than the standard definition of 'person' as it applies to man.
And this is exactly what the Catholic Church says:
In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance," "person" or "hypostasis," "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand.

CCC251​
 

Lon

Well-known member
I'm confused with how you're explaining the Monohypostatic Trinity, and hoped you could use the Catholic Church's definitions so that I could compare and contrast what you're saying with what they are saying.

Thank you :)
A bit of this started here in this thread. I believe PPS, it might be a good idea to put a link to one or two of your own threads in your sig so others can read your own endeavors on the subject as well.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
xxOneness is all about agreement. John 17-22 Jesus prayed that we may be one the same way that Jesus and God are one. Jesus submitted to every Word of God that shows His agreement. We are to submit to every Word of God to show our agreement.
Jesus prayed John 17-22 that we "are one" with Jesus and God the Father. And that doesnt make us God any more than it made Jesus God to be one with God.

Well said.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
This is the oddity that plagues the Orthodox doctrine. All personal pronouns for F/S/HS are adamantly declared to specify "persons". Yet those same personal pronouns are utilized for the alleged being as well.

So all usage of personal pronouns as an apologetic is disannulled. Both "sides" of the doctrine must be proven. Personal pronouns can't differentiate between persons and beings, so they're a moot point.

That's about 80-90% of most MultiHypoTrin apologetics, which is purely inference. It's actually self-refuting. One cannot demand personal pronouns to be exculsively "persons" and then disregard their identification of the one being as well.

And that's generally one of the first lines of reasoning and defense. "Well, F/S/HS are all he/him/his. What else could they be?" The answer is "beings". Personal pronouns designate either without specifying either. It's a toss-up.

And there's nothing whatsoever to distinguish between persons and beings. Without that clear exegetical distinction, there IS no MultiHypoTrin doctrine. It really is an inference-based doctrine will shifty semantics. Theos can then be any/all of the "persons", yet be a "him". That's ridiculous.

Scripture speaks of God's will, not God's willS. And scripture gives us several examples of "the one God and Father". The list just becomes almost endless of the unresolvable paradoxes pertaining to the alleged three hypostases.

The tired tag-line of "one what, three whos" is no better. Now we have a "what" be referred to as a "he" all through scripture. To someone outside the bubble, it becomes more and more absurd and maddening; and not because of a lack of understanding the doctrine.

Essentially what you are saying here is that the use of personal pronouns in the singular should not be allowed unless the possibility of the plural exists.

I object to this as it is unreasonable. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwaters. :)

There are many examples where singular only is ever used and yet there is no conflict. The example of water is a simplistic one. 1 pail of water is called water. Three pails of water are not called waters. More water than less is not pluralized.

Your "Theos can then be any/all of the "persons", yet be a "him". That's ridiculous." is akin to asking the question, "Where did God come from?" If the definition of the subject (God) includes eternality, then the question cannot be asked. Similarly, if the definition of the Trinity (orthodox) includes 'three-in-oneness', then its not ridiculous to use singular pronouns for both sides. You may disagree with it, but it is ridiculous that you should think it is ridiculous. IMO. It is only consistency within the definition.

The only point I made with Nihilo is that God is person(al) and can therefore be referred to as Him, whereas Trinity is an abstract concept and not personal, therefore, personal pronouns are not appropriate.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Essentially what you are saying here is that the use of personal pronouns in the singular should not be allowed unless the possibility of the plural exists.

I object to this as it is unreasonable. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwaters. :)

There are many examples where singular only is ever used and yet there is no conflict. The example of water is a simplistic one. 1 pail of water is called water. Three pails of water are not called waters. More water than less is not pluralized.

Your "Theos can then be any/all of the "persons", yet be a "him". That's ridiculous." is akin to asking the question, "Where did God come from?" If the definition of the subject (God) includes eternality, then the question cannot be asked. Similarly, if the definition of the Trinity (orthodox) includes 'three-in-oneness', then its not ridiculous to use singular pronouns for both sides. You may disagree with it, but it is ridiculous that you should think it is ridiculous. IMO. It is only consistency within the definition.

The only point I made with Nihilo is that God is person(al) and can therefore be referred to as Him, whereas Trinity is an abstract concept and not personal, therefore, personal pronouns are not appropriate.

No, you've missed my point entirely. It's actually difficult for MultiHypoTrins to see this paradox. :)

Personal pronouns are often the impetus for adamantly declaring the basis for three "persons". If those personal pronouns are designated to specifically indicate "persons", then that would make Theos a "person". That's three persons in one person.

Since a hypostasis/es underlies an ousia, and is considered the foundational reality of existence of the prosopon; then the hypostasis/es are the "who-ness" while the ousia is the "what-ness". Ousia is the special (species) designation of divinity. That's why so many refer to "three whos/one what".

What isn't ever considered is that there MUST be an exegetical contrast between the alleged multiple "persons" and the singular "being". The being isn't a "who", it's the "what" that the "who/s" of the hypostasis/es which underlie it.

Personal pronouns can't distinguish between "person/s" and "being/s". God as a MultiHypoTrin isn't three "whos" in one "who".

It's playing both sides against the middle to insist personal pronouns MUST designate "persons" and then also designate personal pronouns refer to the "being". It's slimy semantics shifting.

The Ortho Trinity can't be three "he-s" in one "he". It's like moving your queen to take a rook in a chess game, and then also moving it immediately back because the queen would be lost by that move, taking two turns in a row.

I've engaged many MultiHypoTrins who used personal pronouns as absolute "proof" that F/S/HS are three "persons". But if every use of personal pronouns allegedly proves personhood, then the use of them in reference to Theos means God is a person. Three persons in one person.

To make any other argument is to employ a double standard of semantics usage. There's NO means of distinguishing between the alleged "person" and the singular being without this semantics shifting.

It makes a fourth "him". God is a "him" AND the three alleged "persons" are "hims". That's three "hims" in one "him". Four "hims", since the singular ousia "him" doesn't refer to just one of any of the three alleged hypostasis "hims".

There can't be "one God and Father", as is referred to in scripture. The ousia "him" isn't any of the three alleged hypostasis "hims".

But MultiHypoTrins claim they can use "what" and "who" interchangeably at their whim; just as they can say "three whos/one what", but still refer to the ousia as a "him" just like each of the alleged hypostasis "hims".

It's maddening to have to be subject to such double standards when discussing Theology Proper with a heart seeking for truth. God can't be four "hims" and also have the privilege of claiming personal pronouns absolutely comprise a valid apologetic for F/S/HS being "persons".

Personal pronouns could just as readily indicate three beings if they're ever used for one being.

Arrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!!!! Trying to convey this to most MultiHypoTrins drives me to the brink, and is one of several such things that caused me to harbor such ill will for a time.

What I've noticed overall (though not with you and a handfull of others) is that MultiHypoTrins are so accustomed to never being proven wrong, they can't even entertain the possibility that they are. So when something like this is presented, they go into automatic cognitive dissonance out of a sense of preservation for worth and identity, or whatever. This crushes the foundation of the Ortho Trin format. Most just can't or won't see it.

The MultiHypoTrin doctrine represents four "hims" and utilizes a personal pronoun apologetic that disannuls them being applied to the singular being anyway. Hopefully, you will see the criticism for what it is rather than dismissing it.

None of the three alleged hyposatses "hims" are the ousia "him". And the common presentation is "three whos/one what". A "what" isn't a "him". But there's four "hims", in any case. And personal pronouns can't and don't distinguish between "persons" and "being".

Do you see?

(PS... I'll get back to your two previous posts and PM asap. I'm a bit slammed this week.) :)
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I don't think I will figure PPS out in a life time.
:jawdrop:

MultiHypoTrin = 4 "Hims". The singular ousia "Him" (referred to by personal pronouns) isn't any of the alleged three hypostases "Hims". Four "Hims", yet one of them is the alleged "what" in the common summary statement "three whos/one what".

It's really not me you need to figure out. It's the various utterly self-refuting paradoxes of your own MultiHypoTrin doctrine (even though you're actually a Tridaist, which you don't understand, either).

This is not an adversarial post. :cool:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
MultiHypoTrin = 4 "Hims". The singular ousia "Him" (referred to by personal pronouns) isn't any of the alleged three hypostases "Hims". Four "Hims", yet one of them is the alleged "what" in the common summary statement "three whos/one what".

It's really not me you need to figure out. It's the various utterly self-refuting paradoxes of your own MultiHypoTrin doctrine (even though you're actually a Tridaist, which you don't understand, either).

This is not an adversarial post. :cool:

Straw man caricature. Any time anti-trins talk about 3 gods or 4 Hims, I know they do not have a clue.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Straw man caricature. Any time anti-trins talk about 3 gods or 4 Hims, I know they do not have a clue.

You misunderstand both the subject and my "tone". I know your doctrine exponentially better than you or most of your adherents do. I never accuse MultiHypoTrins of having three gods, even when I'm identifying many as Triadists. There's a difference. And I'm not referring to four "hims" by insisting there is a fourth "entity". It's the semantics paradox I've clearly outlined above, if you'd make any attempt to access that.

My criticism is exactly what has been the emphasis of a modern reformulation that exemplifies more the EOC understanding. That being that there is no other ousia than the three hypostases themselves.

It still doesn't account for the three hypostases being "hims" and the singular ousia also being a "him". The underscore is that there can't be "one God and Father", as is clearly referenced a number of times in scripture.

Like most, you can't and won't ever face that your doctrine could be wrong. That's the core issue; and without me being adversarial, THIS is the cluelessness of you and many others because you can't consider any error while reverting to mystery instead. The cluelessness is expecting others to acquiesce to the validity of utilizing "him" for the alleged hypostases as "persons" (adamantly insisting that PROVES personhood), and then still be allowed to utilize "him" for the ousia.

From an outside perspective, that doesn't fly. Only those "in the bubble" insist it's valid to double-dip the semantics on both "sides" of your doctrine. THIS is why so many are combative and adversarial. You and your peers are blind to this criticism, yet it's the central focus of others of your peers to reformulate to exclude and/or resolve.

Just clarify it all simply. Who is the "one God and Father"? What is the distinction between the "him" of the ousia (that is characterized as the one "what" of the three alleged "whos") and the "hims" of F/S/HS.

You'll like just being combative and condescending, but my only agenda is to point out the paradoxes for those who'd actually like to explore the topic for truth rather than blindly adhere to dogma they don't even understand and attribute to "mystery" at the precipice OF that understanding.

Odd that such a large panel of MultiHypoTrins have the same concerns about their own doctrine that I point to, and have spent considerable time attempting to rectify it with an "internal" reformulation. I just go the one necessary step further than they did/do, because I know what the problem is. The processions of the Logos and the Pneuma relative to created eternity as the time property of the third heaven.

There's plenty of legitimate mystery to God, the Incarnation of the Logos, and Cosmogony/Cosmology without having to manufacture more with a subtly wrong but adamant formulation that had ONE omission. ONE.

But you won't understand that in a lifetime, I suppose. My only purpose in any challenge is the pursuit of truth. So this post doesn't have any negative "tone".

Your mind, like many others (from various God-models) is made up because of Orthodoxy. That's fine. My intentions aren't for intense argument, but for some to be able to seek the higher heights and deeper depths that dogma and indoctrination have omitted in favor of insufficient summaries of a concept.

Who is the "one God and Father"? The ousia or one of the alleged hypostases?

And why do personal pronouns absolutely guarantee F/S/HS are "persons" if personal pronouns are also ascribed to the ousia for "being"?

Paradox. But that never seems to matter to those who have double standards, even if they're unintentional from never having plumbed the depths of this matter.

This type of searching and challenging honors God. If you don't think so, then I'd encourage you not to respond to me, and just to argue with other non-Trinitiarians who have the same myopic agenda as you and many others, which is incessant and unresolvable debate to "be right". That's not my intention nor practice, even if it used to be.

Peace out, and be blessed. :)
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Personal pronouns are often the impetus for adamantly declaring the basis for three "persons". If those personal pronouns are designated to specifically indicate "persons", then that would make Theos a "person".
I have never used pronouns as anything but reference words within sentences. I have never talked to you about "he-ness" or "it-ness" (or even Lochness :p). It is sometimes used in philosophy but only to talk around a subject in the same way I allowed (at post 1928) your conversational "mechanism".

If three-person Trinity is correct (or even if its not), there is, in English, one way to refer to: either each of the three persons or the one God. We do not refer to God as 'them' because of His oneness. We do not refer to God as 'it' because He is personal. We do not refer to any of the Persons of the Trinity in the singular out of anything more than consistency within different aspects of theology. Pronouns don't make things anything. They are simply proper references.

That's three persons in one person.

This is the same shallow arguement put forward by dyed-in-the-wool anti-trinitarians and not worthy of someone like yourself which is why I am calling you on it. It is an appeal to mathematics which is, as far as we know, valid only in space/time. We are considering something not constrained by such naturalism. 2Pet 3:8KJV This is what I mean when I insist on having a 'from God downward' approach to theology as opposed to a 'from earth upward' one.


Since a hypostasis/es underlies an ousia, and is considered the foundational reality of existence of the prosopon; then the hypostasis/es are the "who-ness" while the ousia is the "what-ness". Ousia is the special (species) designation of divinity. That's why so many refer to "three whos/one what".

I don't have a problem with this within the boundaries of orthodox trinitariansim. However, its when you insist on stepping in and out and then back in again, still using one frame of reference which may not apply to the other where I have a problem.

What isn't ever considered is that there MUST be an exegetical contrast between the alleged multiple "persons" and the singular "being"...

There is a door between the room called 'Three' and the room called 'One'. The atmosphere in room 'Three' will not sustain life for those who bring breathing apparatus from room 'One', and vice versa. Special breathing apparatus is supplied within each room as we have yet to invent apparatus suitable for both rooms.

Room 'Three' is not contained within room 'One' and when the door is forced open between the rooms it is like mixing matter with anti-matter; they destroy each other. It is a paradox that both rooms should exist within one household and yet, by faith, we are perfected.

Consider John 16:13KJV for example.
ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὁδηγήσει...
Revelation does indeed, in conversation within room 'Three' use the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (regardless of gender arguments) but does not, in this section, fling the door open into room 'One' with confusing time/space mathematics.
Also verse 14

...MultiHypoTrins are so accustomed to never being proven wrong, they can't even entertain the possibility that they are. So when something like this is presented, they go into automatic cognitive dissonance out of a sense of preservation for worth and identity, or whatever. This crushes the foundation of the Ortho Trin format. Most just can't or won't see it...

Please be advised that sense of preservation, for me, applies only to God's perfect revelation. It is because I still see both sides of a paradox taught which, I am convinced, is not a paradox except within our finite understanding.

...The MultiHypoTrin doctrine represents four "hims" and utilizes a personal pronoun apologetic that disannuls them being applied to the singular being anyway. Hopefully, you will see the criticism for what it is rather than dismissing it.

I do not use a personal pronoun apologetic and I do appreciate your criticism(s). I do not agree, however, that we have four "hims". You have misinterpreted distinct aspects of trinitarianism as being cumulative mathematically which they are not.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
And this is exactly what the Catholic Church says:
In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance," "person" or "hypostasis," "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand.

CCC251​

Its not exactly the same although I can appreciate why you think so.

'Truth is where you find it' and the Word of God is of no private interpretation.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I have never used pronouns as anything but reference words within sentences. I have never talked to you about "he-ness" or "it-ness" (or even Lochness :p). It is sometimes used in philosophy but only to talk around a subject in the same way I allowed (at post 1928) your conversational "mechanism".

If three-person Trinity is correct (or even if its not), there is, in English, one way to refer to: either each of the three persons or the one God. We do not refer to God as 'them' because of His oneness. We do not refer to God as 'it' because He is personal. We do not refer to any of the Persons of the Trinity in the singular out of anything more than consistency within different aspects of theology. Pronouns don't make things anything. They are simply proper references.

This is the same shallow arguement put forward by dyed-in-the-wool anti-trinitarians and not worthy of someone like yourself which is why I am calling you on it. It is an appeal to mathematics which is, as far as we know, valid only in space/time. We are considering something not constrained by such naturalism. 2Pet 3:8KJV This is what I mean when I insist on having a 'from God downward' approach to theology as opposed to a 'from earth upward' one.

I don't have a problem with this within the boundaries of orthodox trinitariansim. However, its when you insist on stepping in and out and then back in again, still using one frame of reference which may not apply to the other where I have a problem.

But this highlights the substantial underlying nature of my criticisms. All the above presumes the three alleged "persons" via inferential eisegesis. It's an argument in arrears of the MultiHypoTrin formulation to justify it. It can't be presented as a valid exegetical process.

I'm approaching it from a "building" perspective rather than a justified confirmation method to excuse such semantics. My deconstruction is to take everything back to the beginning to validate the exegesis of the construction. It's an epic fail because of that.

These are the things that prompted my search beginning 15 years ago when I was lost as a Multihypostatic Trinitarian.

We are approaching this with two different premises. I'm proposing that there isn't a valid means of exegeting personal pronouns to be "persons" AND "being" because they cannot and do not distinguish between the two.

Only in apologetic defense of an already-employed usage would someone attempt to justify such double-dipping. I'm insisting the Multihypostatic Trinity could not have been validly exegeted. It had to be eisegized and inferred conceptually, and that's why there are a number of paradoxes.

And all this was one of the many means whereby various groups formulated to compensate for the one central omission that they all shared: the created eternity which is the endless time property of the third heaven, and its clear distinction from the timelessness of eternality which is God's inherent attribute.

This is like one of those images from some years ago, where the primary photo or collage is seen by focus, but there's a hidden 3D image within it that can only be seen as one decentralizes focus and sees the photo/collage peripherally. Then the hidden 3D image pops out as the focus is shifted from gaze to periphery.

As I've unveiled this to many individuals, they all have a significant "Ah-HAH" moment when they first "see" it. But it's the incessant fixed gaze upon the Multihypostaticism that is the hindrance, along with not being able to comprehend a created eternity contrasted to God's own inherent eternality.

There is a door between the room called 'Three' and the room called 'One'. The atmosphere in room 'Three' will not sustain life for those who bring breathing apparatus from room 'One', and vice versa. Special breathing apparatus is supplied within each room as we have yet to invent apparatus suitable for both rooms.

Room 'Three' is not contained within room 'One' and when the door is forced open between the rooms it is like mixing matter with anti-matter; they destroy each other. It is a paradox that both rooms should exist within one household and yet, by faith, we are perfected.

Consider John 16:13KJV for example.
ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὁδηγήσει...
Revelation does indeed, in conversation within room 'Three' use the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (regardless of gender arguments) but does not, in this section, fling the door open into room 'One' with confusing time/space mathematics.
Also verse 14

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, partitioned for distribution external to Himself from transcendence into the immanent created realms. The "he" is that of God Himself. The Holy Spirit, along with the Logos, are the singular processed hypostasis of God.

I have no such quandries and paradoxes, but it takes a while for someone else to ever comprehend what I'm actually presenting.

Please be advised that sense of preservation, for me, applies only to God's perfect revelation. It is because I still see both sides of a paradox taught which, I am convinced, is not a paradox except within our finite understanding.

You and some others are an exeption to my general, but very valid, observations of spiritual self-worth and identity.

I do not use a personal pronoun apologetic and I do appreciate your criticism(s). I do not agree, however, that we have four "hims".

I'm not proposing there are literally 4 entities in the MultiHypoTrin doctrine. Just that the semantics couldn't have yielded the doctrine via exegesis without being the validation for an already-existing concept (that ignores and compensates for an unconsidered created eternity). The 4 hims are the resulting aberration and anomaly. Who is the Theos "him" of the ousia?

Who is the "one God and Father" mentioned a number of times in scripture? Especially when followed by some form of "and the Lord Jesus Christ"?

You have misinterpreted distinct aspects of trinitarianism as being cumulative mathematically which they are not.

But the paradox remains. I'm not referring to the mathematics, I'm referring to the double-dipping of semantics to "prove" both sides of the central vital distinction required for the MultiHypoTrin doctrine to even exist. An exegetical distinction between alleged multiple "persons" and a singular "being".

In English, it sure won't fly. According to ALL English etymological authority, all beings aren't necessarily persons, but ALL persons ARE beings.

So it falls to the Greek to make the contrast. And since there aren't the necessary three hypostases outlined in the text, the bulk of the apologetic falls to those personal pronouns. And they are absolutely unable to distinguish between "persons" and "beings".

Everyone outside the bubble sees this, and they pounce upon it in various ways with gradient degrees of understanding or presentation of alternatives.

I've avoided all such declared heresies, and have successfully reconciled all the paradoxes to retain every sub-tenet and leave the overall faith undistrubed. But because I touch the multiple hypostases, I'm generally considered with the same or greater disdain as Unitarians, Arians, Sabellians, and others. I've been called Gnostic and everything else imaginable, but all by indoctrinated dogmatists claiming mystery at the precipice of their marginal understanding. If you only knew.:sigh:

I'm a heretic so-and-so to most (not you) because I dare reformulate. Yet virtually everyone has their own personal reformulation in their mind, and there has been rampant and copious reformulation alternatives within the multiple hypostases structure, including the modern attempt to rid the doctrine of the very central focus of my valid criticism relative to the four "hims" semantics.

Without multiple hypostases in the text, personal pronouns bear the load of exegesis in the apologetic. They simply can't specify both "persons" and "being" and then also be used to contrast them. Surely you can see that from a point of exegetical doctrinal construction rather than all attempts at defense of a concept in arrears.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Unbiblical views and philosophical babbling is not convincing. You have not discovered gnostic stuff the greatest minds in church history did not.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
But this highlights the substantial underlying nature of my criticisms. All the above presumes the three alleged "persons" via inferential eisegesis. It's an argument in arrears of the MultiHypoTrin formulation to justify it. It can't be presented as a valid exegetical process.

I'm approaching it from a "building" perspective rather than a justified confirmation method to excuse such semantics. My deconstruction is to take everything back to the beginning to validate the exegesis of the construction. It's an epic fail because of that.

Then let’s deconstruct it back to the “building perspective”.

We are approaching this with two different premises. I'm proposing that there isn't a valid means of exegeting personal pronouns to be "persons" AND "being" because they cannot and do not distinguish between the two.

Your point (I think) is that we are not able to determine the characteristics of that to which a pronoun is referring from the pronoun itself and that it is only a reference to, and not really a theological comment about, the object in view.

This is not an empty observation, but please consider again the John 16:13KJV example as I believe it is not in that category. Your comment on this was;

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, partitioned for distribution external to Himself from transcendence into the immanent created realms. The "he" is that of God Himself. The Holy Spirit, along with the Logos, are the singular processed hypostasis of God.

The “he” (ἐκεῖνος) is referring to the noun following which is “the spirit of truth” (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας). If this is not the case, the verse does not make any sense. But John chose this masculine pronoun to refer to a neuter pneuma contrary to proper Greek grammar. (so also the critical text)

This is significant in that; if John was using the pronoun only in the standard ‘referential’ sense, he would have used the neuter “it” (ἐκεῖνο). My conclusion is that John was aware that “the spirit of truth” is a personal being and must be referenced by a masculine “personal” pronoun. This is, therefore, a ‘theological comment on’ by John and is valid for exegetical purposes. Not “double-dipping”.

This has been noticed by most modern version translators and first by the King James translators who rendered it in an obvious and separated format.
 

Omniskeptical

BANNED
Banned
Then let’s deconstruct it back to the “building perspective”.

...

...

The “he” (ἐκεῖνος) is referring to the noun following which is “the spirit of truth” (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας). If this is not the case, the verse does not make any sense. But John chose this masculine pronoun to refer to a neuter pneuma contrary to proper Greek grammar. (so also the critical text).
Total crap! The apposing noun doesn't have to be masculine. The dummy article is accusative while pneuma is not. Ekeinos refers to an alternative action always, hence the newter of 'to pneuma'. The other of a thing the spirit of a truth.

This is significant in that; if John was using the pronoun only in the standard ‘referential’ sense, he would have used the neuter “it” (ἐκεῖνο).
No that would be the accusative masculine, not the actual newter.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Here are Catholicism's definitions for some words. I think I could understand what you mean if you show me the distinction between what you're saying, and what this says:

The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

CCC252

I'm confused with how you're explaining the Monohypostatic Trinity, and hoped you could use the Catholic Church's definitions so that I could compare and contrast what you're saying with what they are saying.

Thank you :)
I'm very simply saying that the distinction of F/S/HS is not as hypostases.
So I've gathered that you accept that there are distinctions among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and there you agree with the Pope. You disagree with the Pope's choice in words to define the distinctions, rejecting hypostasis & person. Correct?
And hypostasis/es is not "person/s".
And here you disagree with the Pope in equating the two words hypostasis & person?
The simplistic defintion of substance/hypostasis is grossly incomplete and insufficient.
OK. (I assume that you mean by "the simplistic definition," the definition given by the Pope.)
Hypostasis is a compound of hupo (under) and stasis (to stand). It means to stand under, and represents the true underlying objective reality of existence.
So therefore if I read you correctly, you're saying that where the Pope uses hypostasis, he should rather be using substance? Because there is only one substance to the Trinity?
I don't disagree with the defintion of hypostasis, even if that definition is woefully misrepresented above.
Now I'm lost. If you disagree with him using the word hypostasis to denote the distinctions, but agree with his definition (woefully misrepresented as it may be) of hypostasis, then what are you saying?
It's about the quantity, for which scripture gives us only one.
And here is where the Pope uses the words substance, essence, and nature, but you would use hypostasis here? Is that correct?
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
So I've gathered that you accept that there are distinctions among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and there you agree with the Pope. You disagree with the Pope's choice in words to define the distinctions, rejecting hypostasis & person. Correct?

And here you disagree with the Pope in equating the two words hypostasis & person?

OK. (I assume that you mean by "the simplistic definition," the definition given by the Pope.)

So therefore if I read you correctly, you're saying that where the Pope uses hypostasis, he should rather be using substance? Because there is only one substance to the Trinity?

Now I'm lost. If you disagree with him using the word hypostasis to denote the distinctions, but agree with his definition (woefully misrepresented as it may be) of hypostasis, then what are you saying?

And here is where the Pope uses the words substance, essence, and nature, but you would use hypostasis here? Is that correct?

The Pope is irrelevant. I have no regard for that false ecclesial position. But let's look at the doctrine indepth.

Let me try to simplify and clarify with contrast from a tweaked recent post in another thread. But first let me clarify the definition of hypostasis.

Hypo is "under", while stasis is "to stand". That which stands under. The underlying reality of substantial existence. The substance of that which is presented, which is the prosopon (person/face/presence/appearance).

Hypostasis, in a concise expanded linear amplified definition, is foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence. The hypostasis underlies the special (spee-cee-ahl - species) ousia, which is the type of essence (Divinity, humanity, or others). The hypostasis is inward reality that is outwardly presented as/by the prosopon.

Since the prosopon is the apparent tangible reality as the face/person or presence, hypostasis was employed to represent that fundamental substrate FOR the person (since substantia in Latin was already assigned and substance couldn't be utilitzed for translation from the Greek). Hypostasis is the inner for the outer. The foundational existence and true reality, since the flesh is dust and will pass away.

My Monohypostatic Trinity formulation represents the appropriate scriptural procession of the Logos and Pneuma. Since the singular two-fold procession (NO Filioque and dual procession) is exerchomai for the Logos and ekporeuomai for the Pneuma, they MUST be economic as energies, depicting movement rather than static immutable essence as ontology.

Ex- and ek- both indicate motion out of/from. There cannot be "eternal begottenness" as exerchomai for the Logos, and there cannot be "eternally proceeding" as ekporeuomai for the Pneuma. Such are ontological, whereas ex- and ek- absolutely mandate economic movement.

The following should outline it in some sense. It may be difficult to follow, as most don't know their own doctrine beyond a few rote paragraphs of creedal description or general conceptualization.


The Orthodox Multihypostatic Trinity doctrine posits three hypostases underlying the ousia; and the Logos/Pneuma procession being ontological because the quantitative threeness must have such ontology before any economy. This is necessary because essence (ontology) must be pre-existent relative to creation via energies (economy).

The Ortho Trinity also posits multiple inherent attributes for God, including eternity, infinity, aseity, and others. Then a contrast is made of a "second kind of eternity" that has a beginning and is everlasting relative to the third heaven, but is NOT depicted as created or accounted for within the creative act.

Thus there is no economy of God regarding the creative act and being omnipresent within a creation that had an inception. For His multi-omni attributes to have relevance other than their intrinsic existence, there has to be an economy to inhabit creation, or creation is some reflection of God's ontology. That leads to Emanationism and Pantheism; or at least PanENtheism.

According to scripture, I posit God as a singular hypostasis underlying the singular ousia; with the Logos and Pneuma being inherent ontological qualitative distinctions of the singular hypostasis. The Logos is both Nooumenological and Phainomenological, so there is no "coming into existence" at any point. There was never when/that the Logos "was not".

Thus, I don't need an unscriptural ontological procession that isn't representative of economy. The Logos and Pneuma are already ontologically inherent to both the singular hypostasis and the singular ousia.

From this eternal and Self-existent ontology of God as a singular hypostasis underlying a singular ousia, the eternal Logos and Pneuma are spoken/breathed forth. As this economy occured, creation was instantiated into existence from mere Nooumenological potentiality into Phainomenological actuality of existence. (This is what is often referred to as Ex Nihilo, though I don't necessarily prefer that semantic personally. It's appropriate primarily for apophaticism to oppose Ex Deo, even though subsequent forming of instantiated created elements is Ex Materia.)

The Logos and Pneuma are qualitative distinctions of the singular hypostasis underlying the ousia; not quantitative distinctions as multiple hypostases. The MultiHypoTrin doctrine MUST have an ontological procession, though that's contrary the the very terms exerchomai and ekporeuomai. Ex- and ek- specifically demonstrate movement, so the two-fold singular procession MUST be economic with eternal, infinite, immutable ontology already established. The Logos and Pneuma I depict are "more" ontologically Divine than the Multihypostatic Trinity, which has a quandry and paradox because the procession MUST be economic rather than ontological; EXternal rather than INternal.

The inherently ontological Logos and Pneuma economically processed into creation when/as it was instantiated into existence. Thus, ALL things are upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis.

The Logos and Pneuma are the singular (qualitative) two-fold procession of God's singular hypostasis into creation. Multiple (quantitative) ontological hypostases requires a non-biblical ontological procession, and implies some beginning even though the entirety of God's immutable eternality has no beginning (along with His infinity, aseity, etc.).

My formulation of a Monohypostatic Trinity resolves the paradox of "eternal begottenness", among several others; and while retaining every other tenet and sub-tenet of the faith because I didn't just migrate to one of the historical heresies.
 
Last edited:

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Hypo is "under", while stasis is "to stand". That which stands under. The underlying reality of substantial existence. The substance of that which is presented, which is the prosopon (person/face/presence/appearance).
OK, so in answer to my question about what words you use instead of hypostasis or person (the Pope equates these two), you use prosopon...and person? You said that hypostasis is not person, but here you do say if I'm readying you correctly, that using person is proper when referring to the distinctions among the Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
Hypostasis, in a concise expanded linear amplified definition, is foundational underlying absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence. The hypostasis underlies the special (spee-cee-ahl - species) ousia, which is the type of essence (Divinity, humanity, or others). The hypostasis is inward reality that is outwardly presented as/by the prosopon.
So then by special ousia you mean what the Pope calls the Trinity's substance, essence, and nature?
Since the prosopon is the apparent tangible reality as the face/person or presence, hypostasis was employed to represent that fundamental substrate FOR the person (since substantia in Latin was already assigned and substance couldn't be utilitzed for translation from the Greek). Hypostasis is the inner for the outer.
So again for clarity, where you use hypostasis, the Pope uses substance, essence, and nature, correct?
The foundational existence and true reality, since the flesh is dust and will pass away.
I don't follow how "the flesh is dust" connects with the Trinity, since he is not flesh? Perhaps this isn't central to the issue...
My Monohypostatic Trinity formulation represents the appropriate scriptural procession of the Logos and Pneuma. Since the singular two-fold procession (NO Filioque and dual procession) is exerchomai for the Logos and ekporeuomai for the Pneuma, they MUST be economic as energies, depicting movement rather than static immutable essence as ontology.

Ex- and ek- both indicate motion out of/from. There cannot be "eternal begottenness" as exerchomai for the Logos, and there cannot be "eternally proceeding" as ekporeuomai for the Pneuma. Such are ontological, whereas ex- and ek- absolutely mandate economic movement.

The following should outline it in some sense. It may be difficult to follow, as most don't know their own doctrine beyond a few rote paragraphs of creedal description or general conceptualization.


The Orthodox Multihypostatic Trinity doctrine posits three hypostases underlying the ousia;
My understanding was the opposite, that one substance, essence, and nature, "underlies" three hypostases or persons. The idea being, that we never really approach or perceive what "underlies" the Trinity; we only interact with him as his persons, which is how he reveals himself to us. We can say (and do) that whatever "underlies" the Trinity, is one. Is this wrong?
and the Logos/Pneuma procession being ontological because the quantitative threeness must have such ontology before any economy. This is necessary because essence (ontology) must be pre-existent relative to creation via energies (economy).

The Ortho Trinity also posits multiple inherent attributes for God, including eternity, infinity, aseity, and others. Then a contrast is made of a "second kind of eternity" that has a beginning and is everlasting relative to the third heaven, but is NOT depicted as created or accounted for within the creative act.

Thus there is no economy of God regarding the creative act and being omnipresent within a creation that had an inception. For His multi-omni attributes to have relevance other than their intrinsic existence, there has to be an economy to inhabit creation, or creation is some reflection of God's ontology. That leads to Emanationism and Pantheism; or at least PanENtheism.

According to scripture, I posit God as a singular hypostasis underlying the singular ousia; with the Logos and Pneuma being inherent ontological qualitative distinctions of the singular hypostasis. The Logos is both Nooumenological and Phainomenological, so there is no "coming into existence" at any point. There was never when/that the Logos "was not".

Thus, I don't need an unscriptural ontological procession that isn't representative of economy. The Logos and Pneuma are already ontologically inherent to both the singular hypostasis and the singular ousia.

From this eternal and Self-existent ontology of God as a singular hypostasis underlying a singular ousia, the eternal Logos and Pneuma are spoken/breathed forth. As this economy occured, creation was instantiated into existence from mere Nooumenological potentiality into Phainomenological actuality of existence. (This is what is often referred to as Ex Nihilo, though I don't necessarily prefer that semantic personally. It's appropriate primarily for apophaticism to oppose Ex Deo, even though subsequent forming of instantiated created elements is Ex Materia.)

The Logos and Pneuma are qualitative distinctions of the singular hypostasis underlying the ousia;
OK, so here, where the Pope uses the words hypostases or persons for the distinction among the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, you use prosopons or persons for the Father, Logos & Pneuma? I'm trying my best to follow...
not quantitative distinctions as multiple hypostases.
This confuses me. Whether or not there is a qualitative or quantitative distinction, there are three distinct...things...to the Trinity, right? What I mean is, even if the distinctions are qualitative and not quantitative, we can still number them, and that number is three, right? So I guess my question is, how can there be qualitative distinction without there being quantitative distinction, since the qualitative distinctions can be numbered?
The MultiHypoTrin doctrine MUST have an ontological procession, though that's contrary the the very terms exerchomai and ekporeuomai. Ex- and ek- specifically demonstrate movement, so the two-fold singular procession MUST be economic with eternal, infinite, immutable ontology already established. The Logos and Pneuma I depict are "more" ontologically Divine than the Multihypostatic Trinity, which has a quandry and paradox because the procession MUST be economic rather than ontological; EXternal rather than INternal.

The inherently ontological Logos and Pneuma economically processed into creation when/as it was instantiated into existence. Thus, ALL things are upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis.

The Logos and Pneuma are the singular (qualitative) two-fold procession of God's singular hypostasis into creation. Multiple (quantitative) ontological hypostases requires a non-biblical ontological procession, and implies some beginning even though the entirety of God's immutable eternality has no beginning (along with His infinity, aseity, etc.).
I can see, since you use hypostasis where the Pope uses substance, essence, and nature, that there would be a problem from your point of view with his articulation of the Trinity.
My formulation of a Monohypostatic Trinity resolves the paradox of "eternal begottenness", among several others; and while retaining every other tenet and sub-tenet of the faith because I didn't just migrate to one of the historical heresies.
I definitely did not follow you in your explanation of "ontology," "economy," "exerchomai" and "ekporeuomai," but hopefully I can get closer to understanding you upon your response to this post.

Thanks. :)
 
Top