ECT Our triune God

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
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.:confused:

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.

Nope.

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.

It seems you are arguing along the same lines as this article. Give it a quick read? Is this your position/what you are trying to discuss?

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.
 

Lon

Active member
Hello Pneuma,
I'm trying to trim a bit. Not sure how successful...

Nobody else needs a Pope, either. You're the one insisting Trinity doctrine is the vital threshhold for salvific faith. The burden of proof rests upon you for that restriction from the text.
It is a logic point, as well: If they are rewritting scripture, they aren't believing in the same God I am. Joseph Smith did that. Are you saying they are christians? The Watchtower did that. Are you saying they are Christians? I suppose it isn't so much that they are denying the trinity as rewriting scripture to fit their theology, but, I believe such is a salvific issue.
A man like any other man cannot save you in Mormonism or JW theology.

Yeah, because I don't automatically preclude others from faith in Christ because they don't adhere to the errors of DyoHypo Trinity. It's a reflection of God's grace and a practice of His mercy.
For a guy bent on 'in-house' correction, you sure welcome cults in with open arms. :idunno: about you. You are confusing.


That's just shades and degrees. We're not talking about Muslims or Buddhists or New Agers or Mystical World Religion Occultists, etc. We're talking about interpretation of Theology Proper from an inspired text that is only implicit about the constitution of God. Since the DyoHypo Trinity got it wrong, too; then others have that same margin for their faith. It's not as simple as Theology Proper = salvation.
Continuing from just above, one isn't denying the deity of Christ, and the other is. My first thought to you is to 'learn to be more discerning.' You seem to be one of those who misses forest/trees importance and this is a huge issue to miss.


Start for what? I started 15 years ago after being lost as a DyoHypo Trinitarian for 28 years. After reading every Ante-Nicene writing and studying the Greek text, I doubt someone's PDF is going to tell me much except someone's concept derived from ideology and inference.
:doh: a 'place' in which to start a discussion on this specific matter. A quick read would let me know if we are anywhere near on page with one another and more specifically, where we digress. You know? Facilitating (or attempting to) your concern?

No DyoHypo Trini should make such statements. It's self-impugning.
Being intellegent and saying so? It's arrogant, I'll give you that, but so are you and I like you anyway. On this particular, such is no taboo for me. I know I'm reasonably intelligent, however I have nothing I'm not given. It's a weird kind of arrogance/non-arrogance stance.

Of course you won't. It's impossible.
Again, your own arrogance is showing too. You said I'd likely be "outmatched." I can think, and I can debate. As such, I game and more than a match needed. Such is, again, nothing I haven't been given, pride or otherwise.

The thread is about Trinity doctrine. An exegesis would be a foundational basic, and preferable to rhetoric.
And, once again, I ask: Did you bother reading anything in the thread? I mean other than cult disruptions?

Irrelevant. You've accepted error, so it doesn't matter what you reject.
You are being obtuse and inept again. Accepting and embracing are two different matters. I may accept a brother/sister in error. This does not mean I embrace the error in my own theology. Nice try, but you really should look at your own mirror reflections. This is pure debate-tactic rhetoric. Pot Kettle time again.

I'm not the one meowing. I responded. And I simply asked for an exegesis of your position. It won't be forthcoming.
You are waaaaay to hasty. We haven't gotten that far yet. I haven't seen all the issues on the table yet and you haven't been forthcoming as both the grand inquisitor (and yes you are) and keeper of the right. If I were coming to an arian board, for instance, I'd be WAY better prepared than just making rhetorical accusations, especially if I proffered that I'd read all major work on the issue. I didn't proffer that, but I can, as even knowing half-as-much, do a much better job of setting up an OP, for instance. That'd be my next challenge to you. Show yourself a workman approved and stop your own rhetoric. I haven't seen a like of heavy lifting from you yet, newcomer. Don't think of it as a slam. Think of it as a challenge you need to rise to on such occassion.

...which means you're whichever one of those by admission. LOL.
Oh please please read above and see irony here, please do.
I'm honest and will at least admit it. I'm really hoping you are of the same integrity. I 'think' there is at least indication from this thread, that I'm not a hot air sandwich. Additionally, I hope you do some of your own heavy lifting on TOL.

I told you. To set straight the error of DyoHypo Trinity doctrine, and to reveal that most modern professing Trinitarians are actually functional Triadists. :)
Yes, and because you expect me to do more lifting than I've done (links, invitation to read the attachment and also looking up and providing links), I think it tell-tale. Why are three substances one essence? You are caught up on terms and I've already repeatedly given you ammunition to shoot back something meaningful to kick off the discussion. Why the big stalling? Provide 'some' groundwork to your case. For the most part, such is novel on TOL although AMR and a few others can run this with, right now, without studying on the topic. I always need to go back and refresh for debate so provide a few links. Until such a time, we are and have been in rhetoric preliminaries but not for me not trying to drag it out of you yet. The links did cost me time and effort. A show of good-faith toward reasonable and responsible debate effort for which you are trying to task me, would be a terrific gesture. Get the ball started. Provide a few links.


I responded to you and your accusations and presuppositions, not vice versa.



That's tough to believe of someone who started a provocative thread with constant tyrades against views you insist aren't allowed to be expressed.



It's very fair. I just don't think it's genuine. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you don't seem correctable in the least.

Here...

The problem with the Dyohypostatic Trinity is that it too quickly moved to be cataphatically declared without eliminating every other possibility apophatically. In the face of much pressure from competing views both within and without the faith; the process was both hurried and contrived, not to mention the political sidebars of Roman influence to varying degree.

(Cataphatic is what something IS; apophatic is what something IS NOT.)

The ultimate formulation utilized Sophistric terms in an effort to quell Neo-Platonism along with other views. The problem is that these terms can't be accounted for in scripture. So we're left with a convoluted eisegetic inference to conform Theology Proper to presupposed dialectic consensus of men instead of the didactic truth of the Word by the Spirit.

And there's no real ministry of reconciliation for all the erroneous views (including DyoHypo Trinity) to be conformed to the central objective truth of scripture. So Trinitarians leverage O/orthodoxy and take a position of "might makes right". It doesn't.

God is NOT three hypostases in one ousia. A concept can't stand alone. There must be a thorough exegesis for exposition of any view from the text. There aren't three hypostases in the text for God; and ousia has to be carefully gleaned, even though it's still misused by the DyoHypo Trini view.

All I've ever asked is that professing Trinitarians know their own doctrine, especially if they're going to be so presumptuous as to judge others' salvation by Theology Proper.[/quote]
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Lon,

How do you justify your belief that believe in Jesus as God is essential in salvation?

Jesus did not say that.

I don't belong to JW and I don't read their Bible. I don't read that Jesus teaches trinity at all.

I know I don't give you complicated question, but we don't need to know complicated theology to serve and worship God.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Hi Pneuma, This is getting long. Pick and choose what you want to respond to. A bit of it is still posturing. I'll be glad when that portion of discussion is over, but quite a bit of it is 'good-natured' from me at this point though still a bit 'slappy.'

Interesting. I had absolutely no idea any of this was "light" from you. It certainly doesn't seem so. Anyway... as I lighten up...


Think "scapel" not "stiletto?"
Only one of them gets "Don't come near me with that thing," though I suppose I'm weird when okay with a surgical instrument (don't think so, but there it is)?

But it's not sharp enough to be a scalpel. :)

Only one edge is sharp enough... Hebrews 4:12.

A spade is a spade. Bedside manner is important but not as important as what necessarily has to be done. To me, Bed-side-manner isn't necessarily 'love.' God uses both, especially where stubborn blockheaded cults are concerned.

But the Unitarians I know (not the Universalist freakazoids) are contending for monotheism and the virgin birth and blood atonement, etc. Their issue is divine ontology because they reject the errors of DyoHypo Trinity. They're monohypostatic, as are Sabellians. The Arians handle that by insisting the procession of the Logos was a creative act, just as the Unis insist the conception was a creative act. The Sabellis just call the "persons" manifestations, whether sequential or not.

None of this is LDS or JW or other pseudo-Christian cultish stuff. It's some of the other extended doctrines that detract from the faith, IMHO. Most of the above are contending for Jesus as the Son of God and maintaining monotheism in a non-Trinitarian manner.

For instance, I'm much more concerned with the borderline works soteriology of the Apostolics that with their Oneness doctrine. Most that aren't hardline throwback Monarchians affirm the Deity of Christ, but by a different "how". It's beyond semantics, but not by as much as is always presumed.

▲Then you goaded them ▲ See 'em? Pick your poison.

There was no goading. I posted of my own volition without prompting. I don't even know what they posted or if they did. I've been busy preaching in the jails every day, and catching the forum when mobile.

1. hair-splitting to me, so far
2. Have you read what I believe in thread?
3. Opinions are nice, but what's your 'informed' assessment (the only one I really care about)?

Singulare versus multiple "persons" is not hair-splitting. I'll generally take a Oneness believer over most (professing) Trinitarians for Theology Proper. At least they're monohypostatic.

Was that a stilletto or a scalpel? Just asking.

Just a return thrust. Neither. Both. I don't know at this point.

We'll pick this one up from the last post I made to you. :up:
Now for a few formatting (among other kinds of) problems now, on your part:
I've read a good many of them. So and what?

There's no explicit Trinity in any of them. Origen mentions a few things that are misconstrued. Hippolytus mentions God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Tertullian goes nuts on the Monarchians in 213AD with his treatise that gave us the horrific term "persona" in the Latin (which didn't mean anything like what it's inferred to mean today, nevermind the Greek).

There aren't many who have bothered to copiously read all the writings to see that Trinity doctrine was an extended and tedious gradual process encompassing several centuries. And it's the dialectic consensus of men honored beyond their status in many ways. Horrific things went on behind the scenes.

Oh. I see you tried to answer "so" and "what" but its no more profound or clear than when I just asked it. "I" must be the uneducated one with such profound explanation. :think: Forgive me if I 'think' at the moment it is "you" failing to communicate? (thanks if you'll give this one to me or "oh well" if not) - second attempt:

:think:

LOL, you are better than I am and I've really studied this stuff.

Fifteen years of research. I refuse to believe what any man says after being lost for 28 years from indoctrination by DyoHypo Trinitarians (and Dispensationalists, but that's another topic).

Actually, you'll have to remember why I sincerely doubt such is possible. It goes something like: "you're finite, I'm finite..." Was this your doctorate work? Shoot, write a book.

I am. :salute:

If nothing else, the unitarians need to read it

I've been blessed to be part of God converting many Unitarians to a deeper understanding of truth. For many, it was salvific. For others, it was just deeper clarity. They're certainly not all devoid of salvific faith. I've seen the difference.

but if it is within my budget, I might be interested. It isn't, however, something I desire to 'trounce you under,' over. As far as I can tell, we'd mostly argue whether scripture exegetically provides a triune model or not, I'd expect? (just a guess at this point) I'm up for that debate and think it'd be a good one-on-one in the future between I or another. Probably titled: "Does scripture imply or clearly express the Triune doctrine?"

That's good, but it's not really a debate. Trinity is implicit, not explicit. That's why it took so long to formulate. If it were explicit, it would have been readily apparent with little argument other than minutiae. Good grief, there are four primary views of the Hypostatic Union. Just because Cyrilian won out, it doesn't mean the millions evangelized by the Nestorians are all bound for the lake of fire over details. And the same is true of the Eutychians and Apollinarians. Talk about hair-splitting.

I don't affirm any of the four since I'm not a Dyohypostaticist; but the Cyrilian was properly chosen. But the Eastern mia- view is of the same merit.

The problem is that O/ortho Trinity inherently omits the central fixture of creation, just as all other views do. The various views are fighting over metaphysical crumbs and can all be reconciled to the truth of scripture easily enough.

Attempt #3

Awe! That's cute how you used my same words like that. You are original, intelligent, and inspired! You know, for a guy that seems to wonder why I don't just 'love' unitarians, you don't seem to model anything different nor provide anything of substance to back up your own supposed prowess. Did you know that? I just thought I'd point that out. It's just an observation so take it as a freebie, but honestly, if you are going to be just like me, then I'm going to have to like you. Are you smarter than I first gave you credit for? I can learn to like you.

Yeah, I'm probably your favorite already.:salute:

No, half my family is.

I don't have nearly the problem you probably do.

I don't have huge issues with the laity and the general doctrines. They can be reconciled to the truth overall. It's the hierarchy that is a corruption. I don't anathematize the Catholics. But I don't anathematize Unitarians, Arians, and Sabellians, etc. It's a heart by heart basis with those who have various historical views of monotheism. The Ebionites are outside the faith, as are most LDS and JW, etc.

I don't know if this is going to come as a blow to you or not:

Sound familiar? ▼▼▼

Yep. I reiterated that. Trinity terminology fluctuated and there needs to be an explicit understanding of how and why. But the final formulation is O/orhtodox, and it's given us the foundation for ALL references to multiple "persons" as hypostases. That's fallacious. And it's implicit and eisegetic.

Back to better formatting (and thank you if you can do it again in the future).

No. I 'think' I know where you are going with this.
2 observations:
1) the unitarians/arians aren't going to be happy here with you, afterall (they jump with joy when they think another of their heretics is coming to TOL).

I don't cater to anyone, but Unitarians generally appreciate that I don't automatically anathematize them. Sabellians usually love me, and I support the monohypostatic content of their doctrine to a great extent. Arians are fewer and farther between. JWs aren't actual Arians, so I'm not including them.

BTW... I know many professing Trinitarians that have the conception that the Son was created in some nebulous sense. And many professing Trinitarians are also either functional Sabellians or functional Triadists. Most don't really know their doctrine at all.

If someone represents the multiple hypostases ("persons") as having individuated centers of sentient consciousness (minds/wills), they're not Creedal Trinitarians. They're Triadists to whatever degree. It's a fine line, but a line nonetheless.

2) I still think it a bit of hair splitting but I've already spelled out why in the previous thread. I'm just not going to get too hung up on 'essence' or 'substance' words.

At the very least, O/ortho Trinity has to have three of the same somethings in/as one something. There simply isn't a biblical term to utilize for three same somethings as one something. That's where the implicity and eisegesis come in. Inference to fit a presupposed concept.

Both imply 'physical' notions so I've no problem with you rejecting them, persay. These just aren't adequate terms so I think I have to agree with that.

Sure there are. God was not remiss in expressing Himself.

Can we do better? Sometimes but this particular is not easy.

Only because you hold onto a presupposed concept and theme.

If you really are doing master's or doctorate work, you should think about the service to the Body instead of wasting time on argument here

I haven't been online for months. I do live ministry, including the jails and prisons. They get taught a foundation of the truth from the Greek text. I don't even deal with Theology Proper until a foundation is laid for understanding.

(but again, and forgive, I see this as hairsplitting - it may be necessary but I haven't seen that yet).

God isn't three "somethings" in one "something", by any terminology. Nobody seems to understand the metaphysical and the utter transcendence of God.

His blessings, but you are starting to mellow me out from the verbal fight I was expecting :(
:up:

I usually have that effect. Most gear up for a standard verbal barrage with the usual opponent. I've spent the last 15 years in prayer and fasting with the biblical languages to reconcile ALL views to the objective truth of the Word.

DyoHypo Trinity is majority truth. I don't want a partial truth, especially when it's declared to be the cataphatic objective truth of the eternal God.

:think: Maybe I don't get emotionally caught up in past debates like I should :(

I'm just not seeing this :nono:

Think historically. You can't see the malice and bias because you're one of the O/orthodox.

Yes, but they have to turn to Him first, or were you talking about me?

You.

If that be the case, I think you mixed up. If you are passionate about truth within the body, I'm exponentially so about those who would ignore the whole of the Body and cause these rifts and fights. You'll see, over time, they have no problem correcting and fighting among themselves either. This thread is 'supposed to be' a reprieve from that. Look the thread over and look again to your statement just above. We all get along really well in this thread among us. I don't think your above observation holds true. I'm just not seeing it, at least this century (the time "I'm" living in).

I see it everywhere. Try challenging the O/ortho Trinity doctrine in most traditional venues. It isn't pretty.

You say dumb things, at times. I am not on an arian/unitarian board nor am I going to them to cause trouble.

So? With the default status of Trinity doctrine, that's to be expected. They reject the deity or uncreatedness of the Son largely because of the problems with Trinity doctrine's errors. That's not on them.

Yeah, I am. Who? A member of the Body with all the rights and priveledges thereof. Learn your own place in the Body. What you just said was also dumb.

You're not the final arbiter of truth FOR the whole body.

Your problem. Eye, log, splinter.

Nope. I'm being responsive. You go after everyone else.

You are strange. This is a triune board. They are coming here, I'm not going there. I even asked them to 'refrain' from disrupting here. This isn't 'supposed' to be a contentious thread. I 'did' post a concern about a post of yours because the doctrinal point was important. It wasn't to drag you over here but to help them in discussing the topic with you and unit-arians over in that thread. This is more of a 'companion' or reference thread to triune posters.

It doesn't seem so. And DyoHyp Trinity is eisegetic. Implicit. Inferred. Formulated. That's quite plain.

You are ignorant. Read it again. My contention was against the 'eisegetic' comment and why that was wrong. It had nothing to do with your specific doctrinal position. My contention is over eisegesis vs exegesis.

What do you consider to be eisegetic? A preconceived concept of three "persons" in one "being" was formulated using multiple combinations of Greek terms. None of them come ex- the text. They are introduced eis- the text. Where is hypostasis or ousia or prosopon used of Theos at all, except Hebrews 1:3 in the singular? And only Jesus during the Incarnation of the Logos is referred to as prosopon. Ousia is a whole 'nother thing to extract and correlate to God. It's not exegetical at all. The concept preceded the semantics drafted to depict it. That's eisegesis, any way you slice it.

Again, you are going to have to do some leg work. You specifically were talking about, and perhaps I missed the point, the triune doctrine not being exegetical. My only contention was that it was.

It's not.

Why was this the contention? Because arians jumped all over it and read it the same way. Therefore, a reference thread necessarily needs to address that concern with information regarding it. I've no problem discussing the details here. That's what it is here for.

I've discussed that it is clearly eisegetic. The concept preceded the various usages of terminology. That should be clear.

Sorry, no. "Ignorant" is not an ad hominem. "Missing the mark" is assesement, not attacking the messenger. "Sorry. You lose. Good day, sir." - Willy Wonka

In your dreams, Wonka. I ate ALL the chocolate. You're broke. :rotfl:

The idea certainly, is there.

Nope. It was superimposed.

The gospel of John carries the equities very well, but I'm not really shook up with you not liking 'subtance' or 'essence' persay.

Nope. I don't have any problem with the terms in Greek or Latin or English. I just don't like the unscriptural multiplication of whatever term is used for "persons". Trinity was a Scrabble game of Sophistric-derived terms that can't be exegeted from the text.

Hopefully you are adressing this from the other post already, but how much deeper does your disagreement go than definition here?

To the depth of truth. God isn't three "persons" by ANY terminology in any language.
 

Lon

Active member
I don't need to read a PDF. God isn't a DyoHypostatic Trinity of multiple "persons".
Great, now shore up the "Modalist" side of what would be my rebuttal? If they are all the same being, then Modalism, is the heresy, right? What's your answer to that? Do you just want me to post my beliefs? I suggested the PDF, remember? We can talk about either your's or mine, I don't care which, but don't ask me to debate 'what you have a problem with' when you are simply throwing out terms you like. I 'can' look them up but such is tediious, especially if it isn't wanted or appreciated. Set groundwork for your contention and I'll enjoin and rejoin. Fair enough?

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.
Again, I've no problem with you saying our language sucks. I'm the one who said it is indeed inadequate for the job. Rather, I agree with you we can be better if not exacting and I'm asking 1) what you suggest and 2) what the better would be but I'm unconvinced that the church hasn't derived the present terms from scripture. This is a proper expectation of exegesis.

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.
hypostasis - the reality of a thing or being as it exists (substance)
hypostatized - to represent something as a reality
Within monohypostatic circles are modalist and unitarians. Such requires a very careful walk separating from heresies, which the creeds avoid.
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.
Again, imo, there is a huge difference between arguing about how Christ is God and denying He is God. I think most are correctable but also think bible study is 'required' (and quite a bit of it) to correct these views.

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.
Why? A lot of people are yet puzzled by their understanding of God's nature and being. Such comes, imho, only as we continue in scripture, so why would it have troubled you to this degree? I'm not understanding the dilemma. I've definitely been on the lesser heretical lists prior to study. I wasn't denying Christ as God but wasn't theologically mature. I've room yet for precision, to be certain and think it important, but am not sure wy such caused the duress. Can you explain that a bit? Thanks.


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.
Denying the deity of Christ, is a much larger and serious contention.

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.
Which does not deny His deity.
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.
"Out of" is yet stuck on 'substance.' Substance yet carries physical baggage properties. What I do know is there is equitability in Scripture where first "God" creates the world and then Paul tells us Christ does. Where the "Son" is called "Everlasting Father" and etc. We mustn't write over revelation to form an opinion that derides any form of scripture integrity. I gave warning the first couple of sentences above. We must avoid the heresies and walk the tightrope between them, but I firmly believe the triune position necessary for only this reason: to avoid the heresies. I'm not too caught up in disagreeing in-house discussion of those who are triune, but that we are avoiding those heresies that dishonor God.
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).
Agree. We can come up with better terms but all terms we use have a propensity for supporting one or another heresy (in this case, as stated, modalism or arian). It seems to me, we need to struggling balance of terms to keep tight on the rope and stay balanced, which is also why I think it hairsplitting. I think hairsplitting good, but important to keep perspective too. I see this one as an 'in-house' triune discussion.

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?
I see our triune view as the least developed doctrine, and language inadequate to completely apprehend God. As such, well-meaning attempts to keep others from heresies is work done well.

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.
But saying it that way has a dangerous modal tenor and definitely would lead future generations into modalist thinking. The terms we use may not be to your exact liking (or mine) but I do think they help maintain an important scriptural and doctrinal balance. These heresies deny and cloud, and rewrite scripture. We don't see cults as truly Christian for good reason. Rewriting one portion of scripture leads readily to a different God and different Salvation rather quickly.


No. God sufficiently expressed Himself by His Logos, and we have the inspired written graphe. There is no deficiency in language. Only error.
And I beg to differ (suffice it to say). Logically, as well as I believe Biblically, you cannot have language fully disclosing Him but rather disclosing what finite (limited) amount we know, accurately. Such leaves error in 'our' hands, not that the scripture isn't sufficient. I agree it is, but we are talking about two different things: Enough vs full-disclosure. I don't believe finite capable.

I'm quite concerned about any view that anathematizes all others, and condescending so from an aloof position of error itself.
To me, it sounds like you are trying to walk the same tight rope. I think it behooves you to understand the difference between those within orthodoxy and without as one who claims to be within, and I'm using orthodoxy little-o.
You should be aware of which is which and I think you conflating the actuals backwards. Someone denying Christ is God is missing a huge chunk of scripture. Perhaps you haven't spent enough time with cults? TOL should remedy that fairly quickly (and one reason I think they are welcome here, for that purpose).

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 probably worth getting into a a discussion over but will take time to walk and wade through. You can use this thread for that but you might think about starting your own thread dedicated 'only' to that subject. It'd give people time to study, others would post informing links and information, and it'd get the single kind of attention you are trying to draw to it. I'll come read and post there if you should do so.

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.
Well, again, such can be hashed out here or you can start a thread just for it. Give it a bit of thought and let me know one way or the other?

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.
Gotcha, and yeah, it is harder to define such contexts. I'd just slow down and define as you go. It is an important discussion. For right now, my disagreement with you is whether we are being eisegetically or exegetical.
It could even be that we categorize differently between exegesis and eisegesis. Such is going to make for a very long discussion :)

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.
Er, a total denial of deity is huge to me.

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.
The councils weren't done in a vacuum nor were the creeds produced from a void. There were good reasons why these happened and 'fighting' was part of the problem.

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.
Yes, but such minutia has paramount effects, like a small stone thrown into a pool. You, yourself, are arguing over the importance of this minutia so I'm getting a mixed signal from you. My larger concern is that I don't believe you can deny the deity of Christ without missing the entire thrust of scripture promise and redemption. As I read my bible, this is a huge huge issue.

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.
Not true. The Son praying to the Father is exegetically sound for such a doctrinal position. The Word being both with and at the same time being God, is another. These aren't eisegetical, but rather very clear pieces to the greater whole of who God is.

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.
I disagree. I believe saying a being is both 'with' and 'is' the same being exegetically confounds your issue. Scripture uses clear (exegetical) distinction. I'm not caught up with 'substance' or 'essence' as the synonymous but you seem here, to be denying the exegetical idea. I don't believe it is foundable.

The error comes (passively and ignorantly) from not ascribing all creation to God.
I at least think you 'think' it does. Perhaps future discussion will provide the means for us to 'show' our work for comparison.
There is nothing too hard for God.
Let me put it another way: there are only so many things I can make my dog understand. The limitation isn't with me, it is with my dog.
On this note, there is only so much we can understand from God. It isn't that He is limited, it is that we are.

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.
We'll see then, over time what you are. To me, it looks like you are attempting to distance. If you aren't any of the heresies, you are triune in nearly every sense I am, you are attempting rather to be more exacting. I'm good with that if such be the case.

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.
You have more love and patience and your glasses seem more rosey than mine. I have genuine and foundable concerns regarding heretics. I'm not talking about someone struggling with wrong ideas. I'm talking about cults, those who are defiant, and do empathize with members within who are lied to. I don't have a lot of sympathies for TOL unitarian wanna-be's.

And He did so quite sufficiently without error or ambiguity.
Agreed. This does not mean my dog will start talking to me or always get my commands, however.

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.
Er, even 'modal' carries this problem. The problem with any one view is that it can be mistakenly understood only in physical terms, and thus be wrong.
It is important, once again, to repeat the the councils met and wrote creeds to keep aloof from heresies. It is more of a doctrine of 'what you cannot believe and be true to God' than 'what we believe.'

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.
Awkward. You've been trying to tell me it "isn't" salvific. Seems that it is, no?


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.
Such recorrections cannot work because they are entirely too modal in conveyance. I'm more concerned with what you are 'describing' than your word choice but I think perhaps conversely, you got caught up in word choice rather than what 'tri-une' is trying to convey. I think the 'description' more important but I'm a global-thinker and such is a preference of those few of us. We are more engrossed in the whole idea than the exact words you are using 'because' we know they don't always convey the right idea. Rather, we keep looking at the big picture (meh, I think the world needs us too).
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
To the depth of truth. God isn't three "persons" by ANY terminology in any language.


I discount you as being a hysterical skeptic.

And those like you who deny that the One Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . ALWAYS reveal a sole intent to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Thus, I also discount you as being an anti-Christ.

Blather and rave as much as you want, for as long as TOL allows you to continue posting on the ECT Forum, but you will not succeed in destroying the core faith of the Christian church or deceiving any of the elect sons of God.

We recognize you for what you are . . .

Nang
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I discount you as being a hysterical skeptic.

And those like you who deny that the One Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . ALWAYS reveal a sole intent to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Thus, I also discount you as being an anti-Christ.

Blather and rave as much as you want, for as long as TOL allows you to continue posting on the ECT Forum, but you will not succeed in destroying the core faith of the Christian church or deceiving any of the elect sons of God.

We recognize you for what you are . . .

Nang

I couldn't care less what condescending hate-mongering Dyohypostatic Trinitarians think.

And I wholly affirm that F/S/HS are all distinct, uncreated, eternal, non-modal, concurrent, and con-substantial Deity by ontological subsistence and substance. It doesn't matter if you believe my affirmations or not. You're not the means of my salvation.

And you have NO idea what the Godhead (whether Theotes in Colossians 2 or Theiotes in Romans 1) is. Clueless. I hold that Jesus Christ is "more" Deity than you do. That's my criticism of DyoHypo Trinity. It compromises the true Deity of Christ.

I recognize you for what you are... (roar away)
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I hold that Jesus Christ is "more" Deity than you do.

There is no such thing as "more Deity" within Deity.

Such is subversive and deceptive language . . .

"More Deity" cannot be proposed by denying equal Deity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Faker . . .
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
There is no such thing as "more Deity" within Deity.

Such is subversive and deceptive language . . .

"More Deity" cannot be proposed by denying equal Deity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Faker . . .

On the contrary...

Your DyoHypoTrin Son is only 1/3 OF God. (Not 1/3 God, but 1/3 OF God.) You have no alternative. Perichoresis doesn't and can't resolve this.

The actual MonoHypoTrin Logos/Son is fully the only singular hypostasis of God's ousia. That's "more" Deity, regarless how the semantics need to express it.

Faker...
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
On the contrary...

Your DyoHypoTrin Son is only 1/3 OF God. (Not 1/3 God, but 1/3 OF God.) You have no alternative.

My very valid "alternative" is to reject your silly language and erroneous conclusions.

The Father is fully God.

The Son is fully God.

The Holy Spirit is fully God.

Jesus Christ was fully God come in the flesh. Colossians 2:9


You are a fake.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I discount you as being a hysterical skeptic.

And those like you who deny that the One Godhead consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . . . ALWAYS reveal a sole intent to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Thus, I also discount you as being an anti-Christ.

Blather and rave as much as you want, for as long as TOL allows you to continue posting on the ECT Forum, but you will not succeed in destroying the core faith of the Christian church or deceiving any of the elect sons of God.

We recognize you for what you are . . .

Nang


You poor little thing.

LA
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
My very valid "alternative" is to reject your silly language and erroneous conclusions.

Based on your fallacious inherited and indoctrinated ideology masquerading as theology.

The Father is fully God.

Yep.

The Son is fully God.

Yep.

The Holy Spirit is fully God.

Yep.

Jesus Christ was fully God come in the flesh. Colossians 2:9

And your DyoHypoTrin Jesus is still 1/3 of God. Merely one of three hypostases that aren't each other, regardless of the band-aid addition of perichoresis after the fact.

You don't really have a clue about the theological details of your own professed doctrine. It's rampant in the Church, and a blight to the Gospel.

Oh... And your God didn't create ALL. You just don't know it.

You are a fake.

Nope. Your DyoHypo Trinity doctrine of men is, though.

Blessings to you who curse me, in the name of Jesus Christ our God and Savior.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Based on your fallacious inherited and indoctrinated ideology masquerading as theology.



Yep.



Yep.



Yep.



And your DyoHypoTrin Jesus is still 1/3 of God. Merely one of three hypostases that aren't each other, regardless of the band-aid addition of perichoresis after the fact.

You don't really have a clue about the theological details of your own professed doctrine. It's rampant in the Church, and a blight to the Gospel.

Oh... And your God didn't create ALL. You just don't know it.



Nope. Your DyoHypo Trinity doctrine of men is, though.

Blessings to you who curse me, in the name of Jesus Christ our God and Savior.

:nono:

You bring curses upon yourself.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
My very valid "alternative" is to reject your silly language and erroneous conclusions.

The Father is fully God.

The Son is fully God.

The Holy Spirit is fully God.

Jesus Christ was fully God come in the flesh. Colossians 2:9


You are a fake.

Is the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit in your DyoHyoTrin doctrine?

No. Your DyoHypoTrin Son is 1/3 OF God. Perichoresis just means the other 2/3 are IN the Son. The Son isn't the remaining 2/3 OF God, only one of three alleged hypostases (which can't be exegeted from scripture).

In the actual MonoHypoTrin doctrine, the Son is fully the ONLY substance (hypostasis) of God's essence (ousia).

Blessings to you who curse me, in the strong and might name of Jesus Christ the Righteous; God and Savior of mankind by His own blood. :)
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Here's the simple question, Nang...

Is the Son the remaining 2/3 of God besides the 1/3 of God that He IS?

If so, the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If not, the Son is only 1/3 OF God even though He's fully God. 1/3 isn't 3/3. It's not even 2/3. The DyoHypoTrin Son isn't even the majority of God.

Blessing again to you who curse me, in the name of Jesus.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
••••

I spent over an hour writing an epic-length detailed response to your post and my iPad glitched and I lost it all.

I don't have the time or energy to follow up tonight. Tomorrow is full, but I'll find some time to reengage the convo and answer your post.

The direction of the discourse has thankfully become more cordial and conversational.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I spent over an hour writing an epic-length detailed response to your post and my iPad glitched and I lost it all.

I don't have the time or energy to follow up tonight. Tomorrow is full, but I'll find some time to reengage the convo and answer your post.

The direction of the discourse has thankfully become more cordial and conversational.

Please don't bother, for I will not believe a word you post.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The Son is the second Person of the Triune Godhead.

Really? So where in the text is the Son an additional hypostasis ("person"), and the HS yet a third? Chapter and verse will be fine. Thanks.

Godhead is Theotes or Theiotes, and both are singular. LOL. You have no clue what either one is. :D

False.

Faker.

LOL. ROFLOL.
 
Last edited:
Top