Since you've insisted multi-phenomenality is not necessary for all I've outlined, there's really no way we can be referring to the same thing. I think you're equating prosopon with phenomenon in some manner.
God is the initial and sustaining cause of creation at every second.
Of course. Yes.
That's one way how He is present to it.
Well... That's really not much of a "how". What goes unrealized is how much we can know of the "how" when the "what" of the formulaic is correct... which is multi-phenomenality (that you're somehow understanding as something other than what it is).
He is in continual causation of it.
Absolutely. "...upholding (present active participle) all things by the rhema of His dunamis...".
A distinction: the deistic god caused creation and "walked away" (LOL) letting things unfold from there.
Deism is absurd.
The theistic God is in constant contact by upholding everything there is at all times by His power--causing to be in the present everything there currently is.
Indeed.
In some sense, yes; but not really, as evidenced by your following perceptions.
you are placing great emphasis on the difference between eternal-ity, everlasting, and Edenic/fallen creation (not the words you'd use) and I get it--I really do.
You get the basic fact of there being a distinction between eternal, everlasting, and temporal. Not the significance of what I'm saying. You still have a linear mentality that is uni-phenomenal. It's nearly impossible to see what I'm representing, especially when presuming one does by various caricatures.
Everlasting is still creation and time-"bound" and not-God.
That's part of my point.
He is not "living" in everlasting as if He gave up His attribute of eternal-ity and subject Himself to space or time.
Of course not. That would be uni-phenomenality.
This is the default position of Open Theists because they cannot conceive of a way God can be active and present to and communicating with His creation without being subject to it. And there are way too many arguments against Open Theism out there to discuss them here but they apply.
Open Theism is a blight on the Faith, paralleled only by Dispensational Futurism, Universal Atonement, Hegelian Kenoticism, and the modern dilutions of the Trinity doctrine into "three guys" as multiple beings.
Love the smilie. Never noticed it. Plan to use it. :dizzy:
It's... Dizzifying. :dizzy:
In our cushy Western world, we have the advantage of thinking these things out and through and via metaphysical analysis. Most of the Christian world is not the cushy Western world, though, and even in the Western world most people don't have the resources or background or inclination to think these things through and yet they still are led by the Holy Spirit and are Christ's own.
I'd hope everyone could agree that salvation is a matter of the heart, and would make neither a blanket statement of inclusion or exclusion.
A simple faith is lack rather than error. It's error with adamance that is dangerous. But over-simplification is as fallacious as tedium of doctrine.
It certainly isn't a relativistic free-for-all. And even if it varies by hearts and divine revelation, there is a salvific threshold.
Jesus is God and was raised from the dead as in Romans 10:9-10 (to which the NET has a translation note, "Or “the Lord.” The Greek construction, along with the quotation from Joel 2:32 in v. 13 (in which the same “Lord” seems to be in view) suggests that κύριον (kurion) is to be taken as “the Lord,” that is, Yahweh. Cf. D. B. Wallace, “The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the Object-Complement Construction in the New Testament,” GTJ 6 (1985): 91-112."
So all Unitarians are out? What about Arians and their created deity of the Son? Pneumatomachians? Adoptionists? Ebionists?
Where are the lines? Even "deity of Christ" can mean multiple things.
LDS? JW? Where do such stand in light of "simplicity"?
Really, only in Open Theists--
What I'm referring to is a common majority-held perception amongst most I've encountered, even if they ultimately agree heaven is created. I'm talking about pew-dwellers, not theologians and metaphysical (argh) analysts. Everyday folks who don't give much thought to studying. The average nominal professing Christian.
and I don't consider them the majority at all. They're fringe.
Agreed, though "fringe" needs a very pejorative descriptor added. It (Open Theism) impugns the sovereignty of God.
It may be revealed but that doesn't mean we have a solid grasp of exactly how if Paul didn't.
But Paul DID know. He knew what musterion meant, which is why he used it as one behind the veil. His reference to husband/wife and Christ/Church is the hint that he knows.
I know the mystery. All Believers should. It's the ontological Gospel of our hypostatic translation into Christ. Putting on Christ is literal, not figurative.
Well no orthodox Trinitarian has missed it but if we knew exactly how two are one then we've solved the Problem of Universals or the One Over Many (which, btw, I think Trinitarianism has done to an extent)
No. It's ALL uni-phenomenality.
and it wouldn't be a live issue today (inside or outside Theology), 2400 years from when the problem was first articulated.
It could and should have never been an issue.
Most especially our dear Arsenios!
I know my tone may not seem so to others at times, but I cherish him as a dear friend and Brother.
Just a lack of familiarity and/or usage. But the concepts can be mapped. I meant more though that Catholic thought is much more open to thinking from those outside their tradition. For instance, Karl Barth--Protestant Reformed Swiss--
Yes, I know Barth all too well. I have his Church Dogmatics set. All 10 million words of endless dialectic. Necessary to combat Liberalism in Germany at the time, but ultimately a horrific treatment overall. I should have mentioned Barth with Aquinas and Augustine. (So let me toss in Origen while I'm thinking of it.) Barth's theology is an exponent OF Liberalism, and worthy of a secular label in many regards.
is fairly considered to have resurrected Trinitarian theologizing from the ash heap of the "Enlightenment"
But not recapturing original Orthodoxy OR portraying Liberalism, nor attaining neo-Orthodoxy equivalent to pre-modern post-reformation theology.
Were it not for his role in stemming the tsunami of Liberalism, his dialectic would be wholly eschewed as non-didactic. Barth's views are at the foundation of every fallacious hybridized and syncretized movement of non-denominationalism's shallow dilution of all things Christian. No thanks.
and Catholics read his work, even working with it in their own tradition. Pope Pius XII called Barth "the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas"--that's the kind of open-mindedness I mean.
And the Latins (not the laity on an individual basis as Believers) have been apostate since at least the institution of Vatican II, with far-reaching past corruption relative to global Eschaton initiatives. Francis is the first Black Pope and White Pope as one man.
(And when Barth heard that he replied "This proves the infallibility of the Pope."
)
Sigh. Of course he did. Secret handshakes and all that.
Then, PPS, you are simply not understanding what I'm saying. So ask away so as I can clarify.
Doubtful, but...
How would you interpret my references to multi-phenomenality and uni-phenomenality? Define them, if you would please, ma'am.
It's more than intuitive knowledge. It's to the degree that He is "clearly seen and understood" in the things that have been made. So much so that those who don't acknowledge that "suppress the truth" and are without excuse.
Well... okay. But we can only spiritually "know" (oida) by intuiting, which is the primary focus of the human nous by divine design.
That knowledge doesn't bring you to a knowledge of the Christian God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--which is revelation but it brings you to a knowledge of some of the listed attributes (which the Greeks reached--some more, some less).
I'm tracking. Agreed.
Your "everlasting" is, as I understand it sempiternity and this is defined as "existence within time but infinitely into the future." Time is creation. So why don't you explain how you don't have a time-bound God if He's in time and CT--with and without sempiternity--does.
Classical Theism declares it, not explains it; and is uni-phenomenal in doing so.
I'll have to spend some time doing this, including apophatically ridding your preconceptions from the mix. I guess that will have to be the next tedious focus.
No, they're related (epistemology is always somewhat related)
Naturally so. I just meant epistemology wasn't my focus. Perhaps that would be a good emphasis for me to consider for packaging what I'm saying, even if it's mostly apophatic for elimination as "nots".
but I mean it as in a mind-independent reality. As in books, apples, etc. They're real and objective apart from what anyone thinks about them or whether anyone is thinking about them at all (understanding they exist only because God exists.) (
More here, but in essence we agree.)
What I'm trying to crack open for you (at least as pertains to God and His Logos) is that the scabbard and the sword are one. This is what I mean by Rhema being bookends for Logos as the bridge between them.
The scabbard is the thing thought and spoken about. The underlying objective reality. The spoken word/s is/are the subject matter which stand/s for the thing thought and spoken about as/by the Logos.
We'll see!
The sword and its scabbard are one. That's about as direct as reality gets, yes? Logos is not dokei, which is the subjective estimate.
God's Rhema IS His (singular) hypostasis. There was nothing (no thing) else for Him to think and speak about with objective reality of existence. The scabbard is God's hypostasis, which is exactly impressed upon His Logos. The express image OF His hypostasis. Charakter is not the object imprinted, but the tool and its impress.
Not with "center of action".
First, that's a horrific attempted definition of hypostasis. And the alleged multiple hypostases couldn't have individuated sentient conscious volition or it would indicate mutliple souls as multiple ousios.
God's Word and God's Spirit do things and are effective in all that they do.
Absolutely, but they're not individuated hypostases. Yours aren't. Mine aren't. A multi-hypostatic ousia is fallacious. It's a band-aid to compensate for uni-phenomenal misrepresentation.
We can isolate and expand later. We should be able to consider the Word and the Spirit distinctly (or there's no reason to call them that and we and Scripture would just say "God".)
Exactly.
(And not necessarily--but not by necessity, either. :dizzy: )
I see what you did there, clever one. The incommunicable attribute of Necessity.
I very much agree... but no one has the benefit of being present to everyone at all times which is why we must write!
I don't know if you have anything formally written, PPS, but if not, you should--methodologically and systematically.
I've chosen a seminary through which to work on my dissertation, which will then be published in multi-volume book form. Three years out on the completed project, but with website videos forthcoming along the way.
Who knows, maybe (even posthumously), Pope Pius LXXXVIII will say, "PPS, the greatest theologian since Karl Barth."
Ummm... Other than the Pope part and the Barth part, this could be an edifying and prophetic statement. LOL.
I'll continue my efforts to expound multi-phenomenality as we move ahead in the convo.
(I called it, though, on Shugate. Rank heretic. Yes? Jesus as an eternal man. Pffft.)
