ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Distinct. (Simultaneous, concurrent, non-sequential, and non-modal.)
Last edited:
Jedidiah
New member
Is the "prosopon of the Holy Spirit" a distinct prosopon from the Father's inherent transcendent prosopon, and/or distinct from the Logos's prosopon, or is the prosopon of the Holy Spirit identical to one of them ?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Since the Logos and Pneuma are co-inherent and qualitatively distinct respectively as localized presence and omni-presence (each perichoretically having the other's intrinsic quality of existence), the prosopon is inherently relative to the localized presence...the Son. Omnipresence couldn't hypostasize into tangible temporality and take on the schema (form) of a servant (sempiternal omnipresence is formless with no inherent localized presence).
Presence (face, appearance, person) IS prosopon (and this is distinct from the Father's). Omnipresence doesn't "appear"; locality appears. There would be no manner of presentable appearance for creation-infinite omni-presence in finite creation; and the Holy (Hagios) Spirit is the noumenologicality of God's Spirit "set apart" (hagios) from God's (co-processed) inherent Self AS innate phenomenological Spirit.
Man is intended as the co-prosopon for the Holy Spirit to be conjoined to/in Christ. First prosopically for Adam and Eve; and now hypostatically for those who are IN Christ by faith.
Last edited:
TFTn5280
New member
Yeah, this one is going to have to soak in a little longer. Right now it sounds like equivocation, although I know you don't intend it to be.
Agreed.
A little harsh but perhaps true nonetheless.
Read on. There's a lot of gold in them thar hills. Actually Torrance is the better scholar when dealing with the Patristics and Theology Proper. His "Doctrine of God" and "Trinitarian Faith" are irreplaceable in that regard. I am actually quite interested in your reading on his take on Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus especially, more on their take on Universal Atonement than theology proper per se.
Another favorite work of his is "Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John Mcleod Campbell." This book should be required reading for dyed-in-the-wool 5-pointers, where he chronicles the decline into double predestination and limited atonement.
Agreed. Although your God-box is infinitely too small on that one. I see clear evidence to suggest that all humanity is seated right there in/with Christ as well (minus his indwelling Spirit), he being the second Adam, the go'el for all humankind (see the Greek construct of Rom 5.12-19, the one and the many. Study up on that). A favorite self-explanatory verse of mine is 1 Timothy 4.10, Christ being the atonement for that salvation.
They all being included in his universal atonement.
Agreed
And Modalism. You might think about that one...
See my first remark.
Why thank you!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all agree on that one.
Hmmm.
Modalism?
Agreed...On that one we're not alone.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It's not. This venue is very limited. (I had one of the grad students in discipleship read these threads, and she was grateful not to have to be learning this truth from literary presentation rather than lexical oral tradition with illustration. I'll probably ultimately end up making and posting a video on AMR's thread at some point.)
There are a number of things many agree upon, but miss the paradox of any concepts regarding it. Most will admit initially or afterward that heaven is created, but have a 2D grid for attempting to understand the 3D "how".
It was not pejorative, just direct for communication purposes. I wasn't sure how to "pad" that better in this venue.
I'm looking forward to my reading as the titles arrive. The thing is... the ontology represented by Universal Atonement is in the trans-creational mind of God, not the act accomplished by the Incarnate Son. It's difficult to convey that interface of timelessness with all forms of created time. God is everywhen, so even creation wasn't done in sequence in the manner which our minds are constrained for processing the information.
I'm communing with God in His trans-creational immutable mind "before" creation. NOW. That's His forewknowledge for my predestination, and I'm proving that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Zoe life... the highest blessedness of the creature.
I've read some excerpted Torrance on Barth, and I agree Universal Atonement is the tenable ground between Limited Atonement and Universal Salvation. But ALL of them are unreconciled to the truth, though attempting to represent some facet of the unquantifiably immense multi-faceted diamond.
This is mistaking layers of phenomenological existence from a 2D perspective rather than the 3D that it is.
Wrong phenomenological ontology. I really must do the video soon, because you'll "get it" more readily than many others who are on nominal orthodoxy lock-down.
Agreed
Yes, but in concept rather than its actual content. And that is not condescending. It's relative to the vantage point of me "seeing" the 3D as you're pressing to a 2.5D in trying to examine it with a searching heart.
That was included in the "internal" competing Christian formulaics I mentioned. I'm not close to being a Modalist, whether Dynamic or Sequential. But I do beleive Sabellius and others were attempting to represent the truth of what I'm saying, but they were in the other ditch opposite of Trinitarianism, just like the Arians and all other anathemas.
Yes, at first blush, much can merely seem to be equivocation.
That wasn't condescending, BTW. The functionality of the Holy Spirit IS perichoretic. I love that you've expressed it that way. It's the noumenon of God's phenomenon AS Spirit, co-inherently conjoining to God's inherent hypostasis and the co-processed internal Logos as the external Son in created sempiternity.
The details are a difference of minutiae, but you're fundamentally absolutely correct. I love it. :rapture:
Again, it's an area of general mutual assent, but without anyone actually accounting for it.
The perspective for this statement is timelessness, not relative to creation and time.
No. Not in the least. Simultaneity and concurrence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in created sempiternity. Functionally, mostly like the Multi-Hypostatic Trinity doctrine. That's the point. It LOOKS and FUNCTIONS like there are three hypostases, but the omni-present Holy Spirit doesn't have an individuated prosopon.
Of course. And I believe this searching honors God as we reverence Him with a seeking heart for truth and to know Him more. This isn't an intellectual pursuit, but a desire for more more intimate communion beyond dogma. Most don't "get" that part.
All I want is to know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, and in the greatest qualitative measure of all He's expressed and revealed of the mystery. I hate dogmatized false mystery that artificially shrouds God's expressed Logos and is used to dumb-down the masses as subtle control.
The mystery is accessible to those who are IN Christ. And it's an intuitive spiritual knowing to the core of one's being, wanting to reveal it to others to pierce the veil over their eyes.
And to reiterate... NO Modalism.
Last edited:
You won't be missed.
You deny the record of scripture that God begat a Son who is a man.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
It is just too hard for so many to accept that God has raised up a man in His own image to be the savour of the world and King over its inhabitants, one like all of His brethren.
LA
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I've never once addressed a Unitarian or Arian, etc. to demand they acquiesce to the uncreated eternal inherent divinity of the Son. Why be such a pain in the arse as if non-Unitarians are going to denounce the scriptural deity of Christ because of your nominal attempts at proof-texting?
God ceased creation in Genesis 2:1, so there wasn't any creative act relative to time some 4000 years afterward in Mary's womb.
Nobody cares about your Socinian fallacies of God performing a creative act over four millennia after He rested and desisted from creation.
The express image of a transcendent uncreated divine hypostasis wouldn't be an immanent created non-divine hypostasis. Even creatures all reproduce after their own kind, so to consider the offspring of the Creator as uncreated divinity to be exclusively created and entirely human would be ridiculous and naive.
Please go have a fiesta with all the Unitarians and enjoy the pinata candy while leaving me out of your fantasies of limiting God by Him only being capable of having a wholly human Son.
Do you think God is incapable of begetting a Son with paternal divinity? Is that impossible for the God of all creation? Must He be limited to an anthropomorphic Son? Is He too impotent as God to have a Son that is divinity?
Why do you make God's Son in your own image?
You're not going to convince anyone that doesn't already share your lack of faith and small definition of God's Logos.
We know already. You don't think God was capable of begetting His own divinity in a Son within creation. We know how small you resign God to be. You have to be as a god and make God's own Son in your own image... the express image of YOUR hypostases instead of God's.
Can't you just put me on ignore and go about your demeaning of God's Son without dragging my posts into all that?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
me too.12*Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—13*(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Lesson 1
So then the sinner was formed.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The sinner was alive not knowing what sin was or that he could sin.
He was alive without the law.
Until the commandment came........
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying , Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat :
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die .
That ole commandment worked the death already in Adam's members and slew him.
Arsenios
Well-known member
Wasn't it Athanasios who SLAPPED the Heresiarch Arius in the Council at Nicea and got thrown into prison? I mean, the early Church did not permit clergy to do violence... It still doesn't...
The Theotokos got him out next morning by appearing in dreams to several of those conducting the Council justifying him...
But a great rant and passable slap-down nonetheless!
They do in fact try to restrict God to the carnal...
Got me in a huge chuckle!
Arsenios
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I know St. Nicholas (the type for modern Santa Claus silliness) slapped Arius in such manner, but I don't recall if Athanasius did so.
The eternal Logos is not merely some plan as a fiat of God's mind to superimpose upon a reactionary belatedly created anthropos devoid of reconciliatory divinity. Without the Incarnation of the eternal Son, there is no constitutional means for partaking of God's divine nature in hypostatic union with Christ.
The Logos is the eternal Son, begotten of God in timeless trans-creation of God's Self-Existence. Homoousios with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
(Notice my intense change of tone, and my focus upon the deity of Christ instead of passively "siding" with all non-/anti-Trinitarians. The malice and resentment is all but gone, and I'm focused on intimate communion rather than petty squabbles; even though I'm still validly concerned about others' conceptualizations that I shared, and which left me lost without Christ.)
Jedidiah
New member
It is confusing for me that you say "the" prosopon since it appears that each the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have their own distinct prosopons.
Isn't this though the Body of Christ ? There is this, of course: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But isn't the visible church, those taking communion, "presentable appearance for creation-infinite omni-presence in finite creation" ?
Does this mean that Adam was destined to fall, already, at creation ?
Isn't this though the Body of Christ ? There is this, of course: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." But isn't the visible church, those taking communion, "presentable appearance for creation-infinite omni-presence in finite creation" ?
Does this mean that Adam was destined to fall, already, at creation ?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I hadn't done much studyin' on that ole child molester once I realized the "church" made him a saint and dedicated a party day to shut up the offended ones.
Makes one wonder why Arsenios is still trying to justify him.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
They don't. Let me clarify further...
The only prosopon INHERENT to created sempiternity is that which is the Son's presence (prosopon), and shared with the qualitatively-distinct, co-inherent Holy Spirit (localized personal presence and omnipresence, respectively).
It doesn't "appear" that the Holy Spirit has an individuated quantitatively disinct prosopon at all. What outward disinct appearance would omnipresence have?
The Father's prosopon is inherently transcendent, and only shines in created sempiternity as the unapproachable light in which He dwells.
There is only one ("shared") prosopon inherent to created sempiternity. The now-glorified post-Incarnate, post-ascension morphe (form) and schema (form) seated with the Father in His throne (not an ornate celestial chair, BTW) as God's inherent transcendent prosopon shines.
This is the miracle of uncreated phenomenological existence having presence in created phenomenological existence that was instantiated (Ex Nihilo) from noumenological potentiality of existence to actuality of existence as the Rhema of God's dunamis carried it forth and is upholding it; God giving His objective uncreated reality of Self-Existence as the underlying foundation (hypostasis) for all subjective created reality of existence.
God's Logos is the hypostasization of His substance for the eternal internal Logos to be the eternal external Son. The express image OF His hypostasis, not a distinct individuated hypostasis.
YES! We are the prosopon for the Holy Spirit, conjoining us to the co-inherent prosopon of Christ. The perichoretic is relative to us AS the presence of Christ on this earth while we physically live.
All this occurs while still tethered to the earthly prosopon and ousia/physis with a translated hypostasis to partake of God's divine nature while being IN Christ. Indeed, it must happen relative to this physical life.
No. It means the Son would have been incarnate regardless of spiritual death and sin onset. Every multiversity of contingent potentiality for creation was in the simultaneity of God's eternal immutable mind.
Understanding the interface of God's intrinsic timelessness with creation's linearity and sequentiality of time forms is not an easy thing with 2D doctrines.
There is no before or after or never or always for God. But doing lip service of assent to that as a vague concept doesn't mean it's understood at all.
God created time and is both nowhen and everywhen, so I am communing with Him "before" creation, though there is no "before" for Him.
Creation was noumenon in God's eternal immutable mind, now given instantiated existence as subjective phenomenon by His own objective phenomenon when He thought and spoke it forth.
Since He's inherently both phenomenological AND noumenological Self-existence, He interfaces with created time forms as His innate timeless Self.
He is wholly interactive with every facet of His creation "before" He creates. That's why He's impassible. All passions and emotions aren't reactive or responsive to creation since He's fully and eternally experienced them relative to His creation, knowing the end before the beginning.
I'm synergistically participating in His monergism of total sovereignty. I'm bringing forth my predestination because I'm being foreknown... Now. But there's no "now" for God like there is for creation. He's Self-perpetuity of "nowness" at all "whens" while being innately "nowhen" and "whenless". There's no such thing as beginning relative to God. He created "beginningness".
I'm in total fellowship with God "before" He spoke to create. But there's no "before" for God. I'm sheathed in the scabbard (topos) from which the Logos thrust the Rhema sword to create, Incarnate, and prepare that place. Partaking of God's divine nature while still having physical life in the cosmos.
God isn't constrained by time nor restrained by it. "When" He spoke at Christ's baptism, it was concurrent with the creative utterance.
There is no "when" for God, just as He prevades all "whens". God created "when/s".
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
There was no where or when to fall from.
God showed us the end from the beginning.
Sinless sinners in paradise.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
"Jolly" ol' St. Nick.:rapture:
Arsenios
Well-known member
Born in 270AD in Turkey on March 15th, and died 6 December 343AD (aged 73) in Myra, in the Roman Empire (present dayTurkey)... 3 centuries after Christ... An Orthodox Bishop, who indeed slapped Arius across his face at the Council of Nicea - Bishops aren't supposed to do such things...
He was a Christian Ascetic who lived in prayer and fasting to the end, ministering and giving alms to those in need... And a hierarch of the Church... Thin, bearded and robed...
Nothing at all like the commercial caricature conjured by the words: "Jolly Ol' St. Nick" ho-ho-ho-ing his way through his cups at the north pole...
He was probably Arabic...
Arsenios
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yep, those alms you speak of were left in the children's stockings after an inappropriate late night visit.
He had to be thin to get in and out. (hence the fasting)
That wusn't praying he was doing..... try preying.
And yes he had a robe.
Given to him by these dudes......
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ;
3 Forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
He was a gay pedophile, wise up.