ECT Our triune God

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
God is infinite. Humans are finite.

The Trinity is a man-made theological phrase that is an attempt to help finite humans regard the divine. In that respect it is both limiting and shallow.

God is much more majestic and glorious than any theological phrase regarding him.
 

StanJ

New member
The Trinity is a man-made theological phrase that is an attempt to help finite humans regard the divine. In that respect it is both limiting and shallow.

God is much more majestic and glorious than any theological phrase regarding him.

I disagree, it may be man's words but the construct is revealed in the scriptures both OT and NT. It may be limited in that we don't have the words to fully describe Him, but it does not limit God in any way.

Again the short comings of our languages, but our Spirit can and does know how to describe Him. Rom 8:26 (NIV)
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
God is infinite. Humans are finite.

The Trinity is a man-made theological phrase that is an attempt to help finite humans regard the divine. In that respect it is both limiting and shallow.

God is much more majestic and glorious than any theological phrase regarding him.

I would have said it is both helpful and limiting ... as may be said of any of man's attempts to put God in any sort of conceptual box and then offer the concept as salvific. It is helpful in that it is one way that God has revealed Himself to us. It is limiting in that there are so many other ways He has suggested we may discern His nature. I wonder; where are their champions?
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Okay bro.

But I'm staying within this parameter here.....

That is that the son of God has...... always known as he has been known and been loved by his Father.

Agreed. But "always" is a time term, and both God, His Spirit, and the Son of God are innately timeless.

Eternally known as He has been known.

And that after he delivers the kingdom back to the Father then we'll also have that.

Peace.

Yes.

Peace.:cool:
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
I will be out of touch for a week because I am leaving now to go out to west Texas for my 50th year high school reunion.

I never went to mine...

I mean...

Who wants to hang out with a bunch of old foggies...

So have a good time, young'un!

See ya when ya get back...

A.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
PPS -

You make a bold claim, that you can explain creation by God, using Rubric's 3D theological visualizations...

And indeed, without a physical encounter, the explanations you give are not being conveyed...

SOOOooooooo...

IF... you agree that God created creation out of nothing, and formed man from creation and breathed Life into him...

THEN... Are you really claiming to explain, in terms of God's
multiphenomenal hypostatic actions, HOW nothing becomes something?

Or is it something else you are explaining with your view?

Arsenios
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
PPS -

You make a bold claim, that you can explain creation by God, using Rubric's 3D theological visualizations...

Yes. As Ockham (the Scholastic) said, "Doctrines peculiar to revealed theology are not susceptible to proof by pure reason."

And indeed, without a physical encounter, the explanations you give are not being conveyed...

And the main reason is because they are conveyed by revelation in theosis and noesis, then illustrated to be seen. Words accompanied by a visual means of presenting that truth to the mind in place of the devices (noema) of Satan.

You simply cannot fathom someone being a Didaskalos presenting Didache if they aren't an ancient Eastern or protege' of such.

SOOOooooooo...

IF... you agree that God created creation out of nothing, and formed man from creation and breathed Life into him...

Are you truly proposing such a random creation as "nothing"? Was not every contingent potentiality for creation in God's eternal immutable infinite nous?

"Nothing" to "something" is merely created phenomenon coming into existence (heaven and the cosmos) from potentiality to actuality. Ex Nihilo is only "from nothing" as a means of created phenomenality representing instantiation and inception.

THEN... Are you really claiming to explain, in terms of God's
multiphenomenal hypostatic actions, HOW nothing becomes something?

Yes. Created phenomenon is instantiated into that reality of existence from having been noumenon in God's eternal nous. Creation's potentiality became actuality at the divine utterance.

Or is it something else you are explaining with your view?

Arsenios

Everything. My view explains everything. Theology Proper, Cosmogony, the ontological Gospel of our salvation IN Christ. God spoke by His Son and revealed Himself to those who would enter behind the rent veil of musterion.

The only unknowable mystery is God's eternal unknowable essence. But we partake of His divine nature by being IN Christ, the Logos made flesh.

We commune with God from time into timelessness of His pre-creational Logos. He foreknows and predestinates those who commune with Him from creation into "pre-" creation (but there is no "pre-").

Yes, the Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity is the means of understanding the ontological Gospel of our hypostatic translation into Christ during this life. Working out our salvation with fear and trembling, from the inner man to the outer man, until redemption of the purchased possession, to wit the glorification of the body.
 
Last edited:

Arsenios

Well-known member
Are you truly proposing such a random creation as "nothing"?

God in and of Himself prior to creation is unknowable to man... That is apophatic theology, and you have affirmed it... So the question becomes: From what did God create creation? And the Patristic answer is that He created creation out of nothing into something, that something being creation...

Was not every contingent potentiality for creation in God's eternal immutable infinite nous?

You will need to ask God on that... My only question is from WHAT did God create creation? Are you saying that He created creation out of His Nous??? If so, you run into the problem of His creation of creation out of Himself, which eo ipso divinizes all creation, which is provably false...

"Nothing" to "something" is merely created phenomenon coming into existence (heaven and the cosmos) from potentiality to actuality.

So is this "potentiality" something or nothing or God?

Ex Nihilo is only "from nothing" as a means of created phenomenality representing instantiation and inception.

Relative to heaven and the cosmos???

From nothing to something is a means??

Yes. Created phenomenon is instantiated into that reality of existence from having been noumenon in God's eternal nous. Creation's potentiality became actuality at the divine utterance.

Do you differentiate between the agency of God's Nous, and that which that agency acts upon when God creates creation? They seem to be collapsing together here...

Everything. My view explains everything.

That claim is apophatically self-immolational...

Theology Proper, Cosmogony, the ontological Gospel of our salvation IN Christ. God spoke by His Son and revealed Himself to those who would enter behind the rent veil of musterion.

I have not seen the concept "The Rent Veil of Mysterion" in the Bible... So we enter BEHIND it by our own will?

The only unknowable mystery is God's eternal unknowable essence. But we partake of His divine nature by being IN Christ, the Logos made flesh.

Grace is the action of God's Essence through His Uncreated Energies... So do you really think you OWN God's Divine Nature minus its Essence by some kind of PARTAKING?

It is bestowed - Indeed it is Life bestowing...

We commune with God from time into timelessness of His pre-creational Logos. He foreknows and predestinates those who commune with Him from creation into "pre-" creation (but there is no "pre-").

Well, that claim is subject to verification, for pre-creation time is timelessness, and you thereby must know the future and the past in the eternal now that is God...

Yes, the Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity is the means of understanding the ontological Gospel of our hypostatic translation into Christ during this life. Working out our salvation with fear and trembling, from the inner man to the outer man, until redemption of the purchased possession, to wit the glorification of the body.

All we know is that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood... And in this we seek to have His Life grow in us as we run the race... Have you experienced glorification of the body? I mean, that is WAY past MY pay grade...


Arsenios
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
God in and of Himself prior to creation

There is no "prior" to creation... for God. This linearity is part of the fallacious horizontality that keeps you from understanding true multi-phenomenality.

Creation had an inception, but God is not "before" creation. God is timeless. And since God is timeless, He isn't limited by time in us communing with Him. So our communion is from time into timelessness. No spatiality for God, either. That's His incommunicable attribute of Immensity.

is unknowable to man...

Only His essence. By the energies OF His essence through economy of action, He may certainly be communed with in His timelessness. There would be no other communion to have with Him, since He is innately and intrinsically timeless (Eternity and Infinity attributes) and Immutable.


That is apophatic theology, and you have affirmed it...

As a vital tool. But at some point there must be cataphaticism beyond apophaticism that says nothing at all. And that cataphatic is very apophatic, by virtue of elimination.

So the question becomes: From what did God create creation?

Nothing.

And the Patristic answer is that He created creation out of nothing into something, that something being creation...

Duh. But it wasn't some random expression that created it like a sneeze. God foreknew every last plausible possibility for creation. He didn't create something He eternally knew nothing about.

You will need to ask God on that...

I already did. He answered through theosis, noesis, and those applied to hearing His Rhema in great detail.

My only question is from WHAT did God create creation?

Nothing. There was no "what" except creation, just as there was no "where/s" or "when/s"; including there being no "was" or "did", which are time terms. We must speak in time tenses and/or spatiality terms, but none are relevant to the uncreated.

Are you saying that He created creation out of His Nous???

"According to"... Not "out of". God didn't create heaven and the cosmos out of His nous as some kind of material.

If so, you run into the problem of His creation of creation out of Himself, which eo ipso divinizes all creation, which is provably false...

Creation is in no way divine. I've said nothing of any such thing. He eternally foreknew the entire omni-versity of all contingent potentialities and plausible possiblilities for creation. Creation is not some manifestation of God's mind as some material.

So is this "potentiality" something or nothing or God?

Nothing. Certainly not God. Not divine. No Pantheism.

Relative to heaven and the cosmos???

From nothing to something is a means??

Sigh. You can't profess to know anything whatsoever of any of this. It's not material or spatial, just as it is not time-based.

Do you differentiate between the agency of God's Nous, and that which that agency acts upon when God creates creation?

Yes, but not according to your concepts of linearity and horizontality. There is no "when" for creation.

They seem to be collapsing together here...

Nope.

That claim is apophatically self-immolational...

I don't care. It's the truth. I commune with God from time into His timelessness. I'm sorry the Orthodox have stiff-armed that into false mystery and futile extremes of apophaticism.

God spoke by His Son to REVEAL Himself, not conceal Himself.

I have not seen the concept "The Rent Veil of Mysterion" in the Bible... So we enter BEHIND it by our own will?

No. We enter behind the veil by being hypostatically translated into the risen, ascended, seated, and "re-sheathed" Son into the scabbard from whence the sword of the Spirit was thrust.

Grace is the action of God's Essence through His Uncreated Energies... So do you really think you OWN God's Divine Nature minus its Essence by some kind of PARTAKING?

No. I'm the one bought with a price. And I partake of the divine nature AS grace. That's the very definition of grace. The divine influence of God's nature upon our own.

It is bestowed - Indeed it is Life bestowing...

Yes, and then some. Nothing compares.

Well, that claim is subject to verification, for pre-creation

For God and His timelessness, there is no "pre-" for creation.

time is timelessness, and you thereby must know the future and the past in the eternal now that is God...

I don't have to know the past and future to commune with God from time into His timelessness. He didn't commune such to the Son, so I don't expect all of time's contents to be communed to me. You act as though timelessness is just the aggregate of all time. It's non-time, not all-time.

All we know is that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood... And in this we seek to have His Life grow in us as we run the race... Have you experienced glorification of the body? I mean, that is WAY past MY pay grade...

Arsenios

Arsenios

I commune with God in His timelessness. The glorification of the body is relative to time. By faith, I'm already glorified. Faith transcends time.
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
...for pre-creation time is timelessness, and you thereby must know the future and the past in the eternal now that is God...

Arsenios

The more I think about this, the more it troubles me and points to the pervasive historical misrepresentation of multi-phenomenality.

Eternity is not "now" any more than eternity is the future or the present. Timelessness is totally distinct from time. Time is not some aspect of timelessness. "Now" is not some facet of eternity. Eternity isn't an endless "now-ness". Aeviternity (created heaven and the pre-fall cosmos) would be more similar to that.

In semi-grammatical terms, every "now" is punctiliar. Eternity is not an assemblage or collage of aggregate "nows" as one now.

Time is created and God is not. Eternity is not a perpetual endless now. And its not comprised of past and future with an ever-advancing present from one to the other.

You, like literally everyone else I've ever encountered, project time upon God while giving lip service to His innate timelessness, combining timelessness with all the aspects of time. Eternity is devoid of demarcations, and is completely distinct from time.

Spending extended time in deep theosis about God's attributes is a vital part of knowing Him. Few could even recite a list of His attributes.

Your entire understanding of God imposes creation upon Him as the uncreated. It's not intentional, but it's still true.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Arsenios said:
...for pre-creation time is timelessness,
and you thereby must know the future and the past
in the eternal now that is God...

The more I think about this, the more it troubles me
and points to the pervasive historical misrepresentation
of multi-phenomenality.

Well then let's have a look...

Eternity is not "now"
any more than eternity is the future
or the present.
(for the reason that:)
Timelessness is totally distinct from time.

Time is a measurement of change. If change is abstracted from becoming, then BE-ing is what is left, and we are talking with Parmenides... So that if un-changing BE-ing is what IS, then NOW is all that CAN BE...

And from the human perspective, the experience of eternity is one of an expansive NOW that sees the future and the past in its compass... That is how prophetic vision, theoria, works... So your contention that timelessness has no now, my retort to you is "Then what else CAN it be, because it is not subject to change, and all that CAN be is NOW...

Time is not some aspect of timelessness.

It is measurement of change in creation...

"Now" is not some facet of eternity.

If you remove past and future from NOW, then change is impossible, and you are left with timelessness...

Eternity isn't an endless "now-ness".

It is IF you understand time as a measurement of change in creation...

You have now repeated your assertion three times, and given no evidence or reason WHY timelessness is not a now... It is all that is left when 'then' [past or future] no longer exists...

Aeviternity (created heaven and the pre-fall cosmos) would be more similar to that.

Why so?

Again, you are arguing from assertion...

In semi-grammatical terms, every "now" is punctiliar. Eternity is not an assemblage or collage of aggregate "nows" as one now.

NOW is NEVER punctiliar...

It can denote, in fallen human intellectual cognition, a billionth of a nanosecond, and it can equally denote a billion light years...

Time is created and God is not.

Creation changes, and God does not...

Eternity is not a perpetual endless now.

Argument by repetition of assertion...

And its not comprised of past and future with an ever-advancing present from one to the other.

It includes both...

You, like literally everyone else I've ever encountered, project time upon God while giving lip service to His innate timelessness, combining timelessness with all the aspects of time.

I am no different from anyone else - Not even you... God is the Creator of time, because He is the Creator of creation that changes... And time is a measure of change...

Eternity is devoid of demarcations, and is completely distinct from time.

Exactly so... Time measures changes in the present from the past into the future... Timelessness comprehends both past and future as one...

Spending extended time in deep theosis about God's attributes is a vital part of knowing Him. Few could even recite a list of His attributes.

Then you know the future and the past, and can raise the dead and heal the sick and give sight to the blind...

fwiw, Theosis is NEVER "about" anything...

Your entire understanding of God imposes creation upon Him as the uncreated. It's not intentional, but it's still true.

Could you explain what imposing creation upon God as uncreated might mean?

Arsenios
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Well then let's have a look...

Time is a measurement of change. If change is abstracted from becoming, then BE-ing is what is left, and we are talking with Parmenides... So that if un-changing BE-ing is what IS, then NOW is all that CAN BE...

And from the human perspective, the experience of eternity is one of an expansive NOW that sees the future and the past in its compass... That is how prophetic vision, theoria, works... So your contention that timelessness has no now, my retort to you is "Then what else CAN it be, because it is not subject to change, and all that CAN be is NOW...

It is measurement of change in creation...

If you remove past and future from NOW, then change is impossible, and you are left with timelessness...

It is IF you understand time as a measurement of change in creation...

You have now repeated your assertion three times, and given no evidence or reason WHY timelessness is not a now... It is all that is left when 'then' [past or future] no longer exists...

Why so?

Again, you are arguing from assertion...

NOW is NEVER punctiliar...

It can denote, in fallen human intellectual cognition, a billionth of a nanosecond, and it can equally denote a billion light years...

Creation changes, and God does not...

Argument by repetition of assertion...

It includes both...

I am no different from anyone else - Not even you... God is the Creator of time, because He is the Creator of creation that changes... And time is a measure of change...

Exactly so... Time measures changes in the present from the past into the future... Timelessness comprehends both past and future as one...

Then you know the future and the past, and can raise the dead and heal the sick and give sight to the blind...

fwiw, Theosis is NEVER "about" anything...

Could you explain what imposing creation upon God as uncreated might mean?

Arsenios

Everything you've said is bare assertion, but claiming I'm expressing bare assertion.

Here's the definition of the English word "now". It's a time term. Period.

Merriam-Webster

Dictionary
1now
adverb \ˈnau̇\
: at the present time

: in the next moment : very soon

: in the present situation
How "Spam" became something on
your phone and not on your plate. »
Full Definition of NOW

1
a : at the present time or moment
b : in the time immediately before the present <thought of them just now>
c : in the time immediately to follow : forthwith <come in now>
2
used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to express command, request, or admonition <now hear this> <now you be sure to write>
3
—used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to introduce an important point or indicate a transition (as of ideas) <now, this may seem reasonable at first>
4
: sometimes <now one and now another>
5
: under the present circumstances
6
: at the time referred to <now the trouble began>
7
: by this time <has been teaching now for twenty years>
See now defined for English-language learners



Wiki

now
nou/
adverb
1.
at the present time or moment.[/quote]
"where are you living now?"
synonyms: at the moment, at present, at the present (time/moment), at this moment in time, currently, presently More
at the time directly following the present moment;
immediately.
"if we leave now, we can be home by ten"
synonyms: at once, straightaway, right away, right now, this minute, this instant, immediately, instantly, directly, without further ado, promptly, without delay, as soon as possible; More
under the present circumstances; as a result of something that has recently happened.
"it is now clear that we should not pursue this policy"
on this further occasion, typically as the latest in a series of annoying situations or events.
"what do you want now?"
used to emphasize a particular length of time.
"they've been married four years now"
(in a narrative or account of past events) at the time spoken of or referred to.
"it had happened three times now"



And Oxford and Cambridge agree with the above.



Drops mic........
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
Everything you've said is bare assertion, but claiming I'm expressing bare assertion.

Actually, I presented a chain of reasoning beginning with a defined understanding of what time is...

Here's the definition of the English word "now". It's a time term. Period.

Merriam-Webster

Dictionary
1now
adverb \ˈnau̇\
: at the present time

: in the next moment : very soon

: in the present situation
How "Spam" became something on
your phone and not on your plate. »
Full Definition of NOW

1
a : at the present time or moment
b : in the time immediately before the present <thought of them just now>
c : in the time immediately to follow : forthwith <come in now>
2
used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to express command, request, or admonition <now hear this> <now you be sure to write>
3
—used with the sense of present time weakened or lost to introduce an important point or indicate a transition (as of ideas) <now, this may seem reasonable at first>
4
: sometimes <now one and now another>
5
: under the present circumstances
6
: at the time referred to <now the trouble began>
7
: by this time <has been teaching now for twenty years>
See now defined for English-language learners



Wiki

now
nou/
adverb
1.
at the present time or moment.[/quote]
"where are you living now?"
synonyms: at the moment, at present, at the present (time/moment), at this moment in time, currently, presently More
at the time directly following the present moment;
immediately.
"if we leave now, we can be home by ten"
synonyms: at once, straightaway, right away, right now, this minute, this instant, immediately, instantly, directly, without further ado, promptly, without delay, as soon as possible; More
under the present circumstances; as a result of something that has recently happened.
"it is now clear that we should not pursue this policy"
on this further occasion, typically as the latest in a series of annoying situations or events.
"what do you want now?"
used to emphasize a particular length of time.
"they've been married four years now"
(in a narrative or account of past events) at the time spoken of or referred to.
"it had happened three times now"



And Oxford and Cambridge agree with the above.



Drops mic........

Oh, I should think that when we are discussing "time" and "now" at this level, Miriam and his lists, and those found at Oxford, can be safely escorted to the nursery...

Arsenios

PS - Are you familiar with Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time"?

Shocking title, wouldn't you say?

A
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure giving him another person to emulate is such a good idea. Maybe he should learn how to be his OWN person in God?

Being his "own person" in God is what has landed him in doctrinal troubled waters. No one is his own person in God for He has spoken and the church miltant has confessed what He has spoken. Persons going off with a "just me and my Bible" mentality will inevitably wind up mired in error or confusion. Hence the appointment of teachers, exhorters (ordained ministers), and the like—per Scripture. Those who think they are somehow more indwelled by the Spirit and therefore more illuminated than those who have come before us are but chronological snobs and ignore the plain fact from Scripture that Scripture is to be interpreted in a community of saints.

The references given are plain and basic enough. If you find them to be objectionable, feel free to point out your objections rather than waving them off out of hand just because you have a bone to pick with the author on other topics. Try taking every word captive for the glory of God once in a while and you might just learn something new or at least better understand those that you summarily cavil against. :AMR:

The fellow is obviously in greivous error with his "Jesus existed as a man in heaven before he was born" nonsense. Yet all you have to offer is let him be his "own man". If this is the level of concern you have for someone in so much peril, I am deeply troubled about you. If my choice of reference material is offensive you (have you actually read any of it?), then there are plenty of other reference works to choose from. Rather than assign some genetic fallacy to my choices in hopes of dismissing them out of hand, by all means point him to well grounded works of others that have come before us.

AMR
 

fzappa13

Well-known member
Last edited:

Arsenios

Well-known member
Being his "own person" in God is what has landed him in doctrinal troubled waters. No one is his own person in God for He has spoken and the church miltant has confessed what He has spoken. Persons going off with a "just me and my Bible" mentality will inevitably wind up mired in error or confusion. Hence the appointment of teachers, exhorters (ordained ministers), and the like—per Scripture. Those who think they are somehow more indwelled by the Spirit and therefore more illuminated than those who have come before us are but chronological snobs and ignore the plain fact from Scripture that Scripture is to be interpreted in a community of saints.

The references given are plain and basic enough. If you find them to be objectionable, feel free to point out your objections rather than waving them off out of hand just because you have a bone to pick with the author on other topics. Try taking every word captive for the glory of God once in a while and you might just learn something new or at least better understand those that you summarily cavil against. :AMR:

The fellow is obviously in greivous error with his "Jesus existed as a man in heaven before he was born" nonsense. Yet all you have to offer is let him be his "own man". If this is the level of concern you have for someone in so much peril, I am deeply troubled about you. If my choice of reference material is offensive you (have you actually read any of it?), then there are plenty of other reference works to choose from. Rather than assign some genetic fallacy to my choices in hopes of dismissing them out of hand, by all means point him to well grounded works of others that have come before us.

AMR

:thumb:

A.
 
Top