Patently false. I can scan my grades for Greek classes fairly quickly, among other adept ways of proving the point.
I wasn't referring to you as a student. See below.
If you mean 'bad behavior,' take a look at your posts on here before I ever talked to you,
They were responsive, not initiative.
and a number of them at that. You came to this thread.
Yes, to respond to your assertions and accusations.
No, in point of fact, it is not irrelevant. "You keep using that word, I dono-think-it means what you think it means."
Being able to read scriputure is more than relevant to the topic at hand.
I wasn't referring to reading scripture.
Again, read AMR's PDf attached to this thread. It is there to the right a little bit when you see this thread listed under the 'forum' tab as well as linked by me. On top of that, John 1:1 was already posted so I see this as ingenuine. You might have to do a bit of leg work yourself, however, because I can't read minds after this point.
I don't need to read a PDF. God isn't a DyoHypostatic Trinity of multiple "persons".
Greek, some Hebrew, a bit of German.
Alrighty. Then you should realize the interposition of hypostasis and ousia (and prosopon) at times and by region. Yet the English for "persons" is dervied exclusively from hypostasis. Scripturally, God isn't three of those. Period.
Before you ever got here. The 'impressed' was seeing others attempting to do similar 'hair-splitting.'
I'm not hair-splitting. There's an exponential difference between three hypostases and one hypostasis. My view is closer to the other monohypostatic views. That's how far DyoHypos Trinity is from the truth.
I don't mind a good orthodoxy discussion but I'm not ready to oust uneducated triune believers with wrong views.
If someone is adamant about their view, they should know the doctrine. I'm fine with those who have a very general view and don't exceed their own understanding with adamant statements. But it most often happens with those who presume they can because they ARE educated.
I don't fall into any of the categorical heresies listed by the given link though I have slipped on the tight-rope walk from time to time, in attempted explanation or illustrations that just don't work.
I was lost as a DyoHypo Trinitarian. It's why I'm so adamant about others being so adamant in regards to some form of Trinity doctrine.
We need to avoid the heresies, not really worry (imo) about falling as we try and describe our uncomparable God.
But it's two millennia of Trinitarian behavior that is reprehensible in that sense. O/orthodox Trinity has too many issues to be casting stones at anyone, including Arians, Unitarians, and Sabellians of various forms. Wrong is wrong, and I don't care who made the consensus decision amongst anyone from any period of time.
Arians mistake the procession as a creative act. Unitarians mistake the conception as a creative act. Sabellians mistake the singular transcendent ousia, the singular two-fold heavenly hypostasis, and the singular earthly prosopon as three "manifestations" in some manner or another.
Others make similar mistakes, including the DyoHypo Trinity proponents presuming the transcendent ousia and two-fold singular hypostasis are three hypostases in one ousia with INternal processions. The processions of the Logos and Pneuma were EXerchomai and EKporeuomai, respectively. As you should know, ex-and ek-are out of/out from. They're not internal. That's the key explicit error of the O/ortho Trinity doctrine after invoking multiple hypostases when scripture only gives us one.
All "persons" terminology is derived from hypostases (via persona at the "pit stop" in Latin). So regardless what concept or expression is used, God isn't multiple "persons". Only the Logos Incarnate as the Son is a "person" (prosopon).
They are failed attempts but I am shouting 'encouragement' from the side-lines, not "boo hiss."
Why? Error is error. Scripture is scripture. Truth is truth. Dyohypostatic Trinity isn't biblical truth. Why would I shout encouragement to those who anathematize all others when they share at least the same degree of error?
God is Spirit so I'm not too hung up on splitting hairs over 'substance.'
Yeah, but only when facing the errors of O/ortho doctrine. It's not splitting hairs. Either God is three substances (in one essence) or God is one substance of one essence. Huge difference, especially when the former is unscriptural and leveraged to anathematize millions upon millions for 1700 years.
Our language is inadequate to task.
No. God sufficiently expressed Himself by His Logos, and we have the inspired written graphe. There is no deficiency in language. Only error.
As long as one is trying to avoid the blatant heresies, I'm not too hung up on immature or wrong answers.
I'm quite concerned about any view that anathematizes all others, and condescending so from an aloof position of error itself.
To me, it looks like classic hair-splitting unless you are concerned regarding the heresies listed in the PDF. If so, :up:
I'm concerned with the whole truth. No fudging by allowing wiggle room for DyoHypo Trins only. It's as wrong as those views you abhor (along with their adherents, apparently).
It is ignorant. The triune view is not eisegetic.
Sure it is. It's inferred, and it is hermeneutically inferior to the truth of God being monohypostatic. It's implicit at best, not explicit. It can't be exegeted.
How do you explain yourself being some form of triune if it is eisegetic?
Because triune is a slightly variable term. I'd prefer Merismos Monotheist or Monotarian, but nobody understands the context of those terms. The issue is.... The Holy Spirit is NOT a "person", and I don't mean that in the Binitarian sense.
The Logos is eternal... as the Logos. The Son is co-terminous with the Logos. The internal Logos became the external Son, but not until the Incarnation. Huge difference. Monumental. The Unitarians aren't as wrong as you presume, nor are the Sabellians and the Arians or the Binitarians, etc.
Everyone is maintaining monotheism while including the Son as the begotten of the Father of a virgin who atoned for the sin of mankind by his blood. I'd say the specifics of the ontological details give enough latitude for those above, depending on their hearts' hearing the Rhema for salvific faith beyond doctrinal formulation.
And I don't mean that in ANY degree of a Universalist sense or with any compromise. The threshhold of salvation is NOT predicated upon the understanding of minutiae of doctrine. I don't automatically exclude others from the faith, so it seems I coddle other views. In reality, I'm compensating for their abysmal treatment by O/ortho Trinitarians. I've experienced it myself... in spades.
I find the idea exegetical and defensible without apology or restraint.
Of course you do. And yet you can't provide multiple "persons" from the text by ANY specific terminology. You have to eisegetically infer terms and insert them into a preconceived formulation that God must be three "persons" in one "being" by some derivation. That's eisegesis.
No, your ignorance is showing. How can something be both unless it conveys such triune information and notions? Answer? It can't. Why don't you know this? It isn't hidden discussion? Read a bit of this thread.
I'm not even sure what your response is here.
Ah, your motto says that. It doesn't mean anything. Saying "just because a large group says it is true, doesn't make it so" isn't saying anything. Everyone knows this. However, the majority, statistically, is nearly always right (food for thought).
Objective truth is objective truth. Subjective truth is only objective truth to the extent that it yields to that objective truth.
The objective truth is... God is NOT three "persons" by ANY terminology in ANY language. Period.
The error comes (passively and ignorantly) from not ascribing all creation to God.
Eh, splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned.
We are dealing with 3 things that makes it hard for God to communicate to man who and what He is:
There is nothing too hard for God.
1) we are finite or limited in what we can absorb. Infinite cannot fit into finite. We are going to get a limited grasp of this. If you are triune, great.
Nope. God hath revealed it unto to us by His Spirit and in His Word. And I'm not triune in any sense that you are.
2) Material universe - we tend to not have a good grasp on what is not 'concrete sequential' to our thinking and a good many of us cannot think beyond to metaphysical concepts. I can (to some degree or another), but give those folks a break!
I can't give anyone a break who adamantly insists their meager erroneous doctrine is the absolute objective truth, can't exegete diddly to support its explicit terminology of an implicit concept that isn't in scripture, and vehemently anathematizes all others striving to understand the same apparent paradoxes while seeing the errors of the DyoHypo Trinity. Give THEM a break. They're no more wrong than you. Same glass darkly. Have mercy; obtain mercy.
3) Language - which is also finite and also stuck orbiting the 'physical,' and has difficulty expressing any form of infinite, isn't adequate but God chose it to express Himself.
And He did so quite sufficiently without error or ambiguity.
The tri-une view is a theological and biblical construct that sees only one God (-une), and yet the Father, Son, and Spirit are Him (Tri-).
And there the vast differences begin. They begin with a complete miscomprehension of the metaphysical realm and specify INternal processions for the Logos and the Pneuma.
For me, triunity is the better term because 'trinity' is, I agree, at least somewhat inadequate but is historically relevant.
Either is irrelevant compared to the content. It's semantics. That's why I don't mind labeling myself as Trinitarian, though I wouldn't for many years after my true salvation.
No. But it's at least a fairly concise and cogent respresentative snippet of history to delineate how the Trinity doctrine fluctuated and then was absolutely finalized to give us the English terms still used to this day.
God is NOT three "persons". Period. It can't be more plain from the text. There aren't three hypostases anywhere, or three anything else to concoct multiple "persons". Only the inference of self-refuting pronouns. We can discuss it more if you want. I'm not sure you do.