Alas! You're now a Yank
Think more androgenous. No drawl at all.:dizzy:
And that's fine by me. No Christian has to articulate the "how" to be a Christian.
I'm not referring to a salvific threshold relative to theological knowledge. I'm referring to the results of faulty theology in hearts and minds and lives.
And incompleteness or error CAN be salvific. There IS a salvific threshold somehow related to whatever is believed.
Well again, I don't know anyone who holds that view--it sounds like the very simple conception of a child who wouldn't be engaging in metaphysical analysis (which, again, is a very simple faith and fine with me (and Jesus).
I'm surprised you haven't encountered this epidemic pervasive unaddressed presumption. It's mostly just never a subject.
I mean "we'll get there" in the sense of analysis once the foundational concepts are analyzed and understood.
Fair enough.
But, PPS, there is a degree of mystery (Eph 5)--like in a married man and woman being one flesh and Christ and His church being one.
Musterion is being behind the veil. Mystery revealed. I agree it's a great revealed mystery. I cannot agree that it isn't revealed. God, by His Logos, didn't stutter when He spoke forth the Logos as Ho Huios, the eternal uncreated Son.
I agree that few have ever understood the ontological Gospel, Anthropology Proper, and Theology Proper. And that's partly because the Classic Trinity doctrine has gotten in the way as mandatory indoctrination, including among Protestants.
Some of the edges will remain quite fuzzy... If Paul couldn't articulate exactly how these two things could be one thing in creation, then in Christ and His church, and how much more in God. God isn't mastered...
Mastery and mystery are a false dichotomy. What if there is more revealed in exegesis and lexicography than has been historically presented? What if EVERYBODY missed something? One thing. And yet all presumed to have included it.
Accounting for multi-phenomenality with a uni-phenomenal filter is fallacious. It's the most difficult obstacle to recognizing (re-cognizing) the depth, breadth, and height of Theology Proper and dispelling false and prematurely-declared "mystery".
Thanks! But you deserve a hearing! That is the Protestant tradition--Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda [but always WITH] secundum verbum Dei!
You're not likely to get a serious (maybe should say academic) hearing from the Orthodox.
Nor would anyone, really. I love the Easterns, though.
The RCC offers a little more latitude in theological speculation, though.
Meh. But I'm not fond of the Latinisms.
Okay.
I used atemporal (and infinite) to capture that since "eternity" is polysemous (as you go on to note below).
Eternity isn't really polysemous as much as not understood. God alone is eternity. It's an incommunicable attribute.
"Atemporal" in this sense!
And yet... the cosmos isn't "temporary". Such terms have consistently been misapplied and misused.
I think you want to limit the notion merely to time and I understand what you're saying but "eternal" also has a certain quality about it (And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent) so we can't just say "everlasting life"--there's a component there about knowing.
And that would be great if it were conveyed based on the appropriate foundation of distinguishing uncreated eternity from created aeviternity. It most definitely has a qualitative connotation, which is obscured by the terms themselves.
Yes, I know you keep saying this but it is clearly distinguished by doctrine in the various Christian confessions.
And you keep saying this, but it is NOT clearly distinguished. It's declared from a presumptive uni-phenomenal perspective.
No. But I know you think you did.
I know you didn't, but you also didn't account for multi-phenomenality.
Well first, I hope you agree that the uncreated, omnipotent, and omniscient God would not develop the creation that He did without having any means of communicating (and/or commune-icating) with it.
Of course He wouldn't. Creation cannot be superordinant to God or in any way exclusive OF Him.
The way its being presented is almost as if God creates by necessity and then somehow must figure a way to interact with creation--a rather hapless God indeed.
Ummm... No. My statements have been to show the naivete' of uni-phenomenality.
That said, the "formatting" is the Logos. The ontological mediator, the economic mediator, the only mediator--Jesus Christ.
Right. But STILL not according to uni-phenomenality, which is all that has been historically presented. And the further more difficult elephant in the room to deal with is the Holy Spirit, who is also not an individuated hypostasis either.
And man has an inner "receiver" or "receptor" or "recognizer" which Scripture locates in his heart. This inner receiver, while fallen, is not extinguished and is illumined of and by the Logos.
That's oida. Intuitive knowledge. Access, which was abrogated and resigned to internal functionality by Edenic spiritual death. And then Augustine jacked up any real understanding of it, inisisting man is conceived in sin.
This is in part natural reason--by design. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."
God is not hindered by man's depravity in redeeming us.
I gave you the how earlier--"He is pure be-ing in pure act--no unrealized potential in Him.
That's nowhere near the extent of "how" to which I'm referring.
He is holding every last particle of matter together and if He didn't we'd poof out of existence."
Well... This is quite nebulous, though true. How?
(And you'd have to point specifically to "Aquinas' epic fail"
Briefly... His two "kinds" of eternity. One for God, one for heaven.
because he says essentially the same thing you said "Yes" to above.
Only the uni-phenomenal attempt at multi-phenomenality.
You keep repeating this but I know I am not the only one who understands and affirms the distinction and accounts for it.
Sad sigh. No. This is the wall that always erects itself in this convo. Wherelessness and whenlessness doesn't just coalesce with wheres and whens.
Multi-phenomenality must be truly understood and accounted for.
I think you think the only way this can be done is via multi-phenomenality and it just isn't so if you address how pure be-ing in act doesn't, we can dive down further.
We'll have to. So far, it's only snorkeling in uni-phenomenality.
Point specifically to his epic failure. At bottom, his epic failure for you can only be that he argues and affirms 3 hypostases but not only does he do that, he argues how, summed up with the snip "God is said to be in all things by essence, not indeed by the essence of the things themselves, as if He were of their essence; but by His own essence; because His substance is present to all things as the cause of their being." which leads me to the below...
This will take some doing, since we're not yet referring to the same things and you presume we are.
...where you said "okay". So if you'd like to discuss the essence portion and/or heaven as a consideration, I'm right here!
Since creation is not immanent to God's essence, it cannot just "be" so. And multi-hypostaticism has replaced multi-phenomenality.
This I agree with (as can most)--it's essentially the ubiquitous philosophical realism "Christianized".
Well... sorta, but not really. Realism is a philosophical system of epistemology for created consciousness and perception.
Ah--an indirect realist as relates perception. I'm a direct realist so may get out Ockham's razor later to hack that "representation" off...
I'm not an indirect realist, and this has nothing to do with realism.
Good to this point, too.
You are way, waaaaaay closer, btw, to Aquinas than you know (or would care to admit)...
The sad thing is it seems so. That's why I despise his self-declared straw. It's so subtly close to truth that true multi-phenomenality jas been obscured.
And here's where I get off because...
I know. It's the jumping-off-point where uni-phenomenal caricature and parallel runs out.
...I say it is in existence. And hypostatically so--as real centers of action.
A uni-phenomenal assertion.
I may need to argue direct realism here. I know why you need the noumenon or percept or representation but...you don't!
I'm not addressing realism in the least. Arguing direct versus indirect realism is irrelevant here.
Yay. I'm just hoping you're agreeing for what it is rather than a parody or caricature.
Okay, but let's focus on the two first.
Almost impossible, as I see it. The scabbard and sword are homogenous. (And should dispel any notion that I'm an indirect realist, yes?)
A nice personal sit-down would be productive, efficient, and expeditious. This format is very limited and becomes tedious.
