PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
That was to Lon. Why would I bother to spend any time outlining the truth to someone who is ideologized by a mere concept of God as men's insufficient doctrine. LOL.:think:
But blessings to the curser anyway.:rotfl:
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
That was to Lon. Why would I bother to spend any time outlining the truth to someone who is ideologized by a mere concept of God as men's insufficient doctrine. LOL.:think:
But blessings to the curser anyway.:rotfl:
Still blocked, am I? Don't be a baby for getting a neg rep for making such unbiblical statements on an evangelical forum.
Did he used to post under another name? Is there a link to his beliefs/website?
Straw man caricatures....who did you used to post as?
Krsto
Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
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.
This is interesting. Perhaps for the sake of communication both of you can answer these questions with Jesus praying to God in mind:
1) Two persons? (in the English sense of the word, as we normally understand it)
2) One will or two? Same will or one in heart/purpose with a potential for differences?
3) If two persons, the one born in Bethlehem - who's talking? Man or God (2nd Person of Trinity?).
4) If two "something" other than people, then what? Does the bible tell us or do we have to infer it?
5) If one "something" while being two of whatever you define in #4, then what? Does the bible tell us or do we have to infer it?
6) If God is one person, yet you answer 2 to question #1, then what is the one who spoke to the Father? This is different than question #3, since #3 allows for God being two (or more) persons.
Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
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.
This is interesting. Perhaps for the sake of communication both of you can answer these questions with Jesus praying to God in mind:
1) Two persons? (in the English sense of the word, as we normally understand it)
2) One will or two? Same will or one in heart/purpose with a potential for differences?
3) If two persons, the one born in Bethlehem - who's talking? Man or God (2nd Person of Trinity?).
4) If two "something" other than people, then what? Does the bible tell us or do we have to infer it?
5) If one "something" while being two of whatever you define in #4, then what? Does the bible tell us or do we have to infer it?
6) If God is one person, yet you answer 2 to question #1, then what is the one who spoke to the Father? This is different than question #3, since #3 allows for God being two (or more) persons.
Lon
Well-known member
There is again, friendly banter. It seemed fun and is about half of this repost. I left it in though the length is unruly. I'm not sure if good-natured humor is a good reason for unruly length. Anybody reading along can sue me if not humored 
Ignore and cut any superflous as you are able and inclined.
Deity is the primary issue regarding our need of Salvation. The whole message of the cross is that 'man can't do it.' To then make Christ a man is horrendous. It, imo (and nearly every one else's), is a deal-breaker. That might hurt to hear, but this is 'why' at least. I'd love Freakazoid Universalism, if scripture would allow it. A line, I believe, must be drawn and you agree but the problem is what we believe constitutes Christianity at this point. I believe Jesus as nothing but a created man humanistic-more-of the same that got us into sin in the first place. It is no good news.
Why? Because you have to then allow Muhammed and Joseph Smith up there on your list of 'acceptable.' "Your" line doesn't disclude them and now we have a totally different way of obtaining salvation and it is back to placing hope in man, not deity, including Christ in their eyes. Imho, you have got to change and capitulate with other trinitarians. I don't see a way out of it.
I don't have to sit you down and explain detailed and clearly what I believe as much as when someone is trying to lead you away from a truth. Such, then, necessitates that I do so. This, I believe, is what a perusal of ECF's tells us.
Truncated from here. If I missed something pertinent in favor of inane, a slap will suffice.
Ignore and cut any superflous as you are able and inclined.We rough-housed a lot growing up. It is probably dysfunctional.
Well, buck up for meat-ball surgery then. It is really going to hurt with a butter knife, but I was thinking of the same verse and don't think that one is ever dull. Regardless, those inflamed appendices need to come out.But it's not sharp enough to be a scalpel.
Only one edge is sharp enough... Hebrews 4:12.
Yet, I believe deity the whole burrito middle. I can eat that off a plate. To me this is like arguing that you have the tortilla and hot sauce, and cilantro.
Deity is the primary issue regarding our need of Salvation. The whole message of the cross is that 'man can't do it.' To then make Christ a man is horrendous. It, imo (and nearly every one else's), is a deal-breaker. That might hurt to hear, but this is 'why' at least. I'd love Freakazoid Universalism, if scripture would allow it. A line, I believe, must be drawn and you agree but the problem is what we believe constitutes Christianity at this point. I believe Jesus as nothing but a created man humanistic-more-of the same that got us into sin in the first place. It is no good news.
Worse. I'm with you that at least modalists I can talk to. They aren't completely destroying the message of redemption. I don't believe you can have redemption without deity. Everything, everthing, everything from Genesis to Malachi and Matthew to Revelation points to our extreme need of 'divine' intervention: The man Jesus Christ as to 'relational,' yes, but without Deity is a complete wash of first, prophecy where it all counts for not, and second, a complete disregard of very clear revelation in the NT, especially when it brings up those OT fulfillments. Conceptually, like arguing a tortilla, onions, cilantro, and hot sauce, can constitute a burrito, I'd say okay "conceptually." But, if one denies the middle exists, we really don't have a burrito, other than 'conceptually.' = "If one has not the Son, one has not life (Christianity)."
This is not the all magical answer to this dilemma. Modalists and Arians are monohypostatic too. It is okay to say a burrito has to have a sauce, outer shell, and middle, but if it isn't "Deity" in this case, we aren't talking about Christianity/orthodoxy. So yes to the concept, no to all contenders, for me. I don't believe this is the right line or circle to draw. If you have bad karma with a triune church, I can see the knee-jerk here but when you choose to remain in the triune camp, I don't think even you can live with this incorrect category. It doesn't hold true because it includes cults.
Why? Because you have to then allow Muhammed and Joseph Smith up there on your list of 'acceptable.' "Your" line doesn't disclude them and now we have a totally different way of obtaining salvation and it is back to placing hope in man, not deity, including Christ in their eyes. Imho, you have got to change and capitulate with other trinitarians. I don't see a way out of it.
Yep. Muhammed and Joseph Smith as well.
I think that's exactly where 'your' line goes and allows. It is forcing 'you' to be arbitrary, imho. It isn't consistent to allow Arians in your camp and then oust a JW or Mormon, or any of the other heresy concerns.
Er, Joseph Smith claims "Son of God" too. Your line, imo, is faulty and wrong. Whatever hang-up, with whatever church, I think must/needs to be reconcilled. Your line, I believe, must exist within the triune framework to remain triune yourself (I believe triune more accurate than 'trinity' btw).
Of course, that's why the pitfalls are all heresies and to be avoided. For me, Modalists are wrong too. We can throw them in a room with polytheists and watch them go crazy and wondering 'what bible' the other one is reading. Each totally neglects the opposite verses in scripture from one another. Together they'd have one whole bible between them.
Tri- -une means some aspect of three and some aspect of one to God as He reveals Himself to us. It is important when discussing the aspect of three, that deity is intact. After that if you are sloppy, I'm not going to get slappy, but again, for me, this part is essential to maintain an intact meaningful gospel and Bible. I believe it has to be at least this much.
That's like saying there is no believer who believed Jesus came in the flesh, against Docetism, before 1 John 4:2 to me. Rather, some things aren't 'express' until the need to correct heresy but that doesn't mean the 'implicit/explicit' idea is not there. Such isn't good scholasticism imo. It just doesn't hold historically accurate water. The 'sentiment' is easily found prior to a need to address arianism, for instance. Such should not be missed. It in no way means the church wasn't triune prior. That's a ridiculous untenuable statement and sentiment that arians throw around on here and it is horrible and shoddy work and patently false. You don't get 'triune' all of the sudden, just because someone doesn't like arians at a 2nd century council. That's really horrible logic. It doesn't and didn't happen that way.
Yes, but not misconstrued. Rather, there was, at that time, no need to be as exacting. Arians weren't punching the walls at the time.
Yep, to Modalist's chagrin.
Incidental rather than derivative and connective, imo. I try and separate my civil and humane conscience, from imposing upon a prior generation's. They just were not as conscious or conscientiously developed, Christian or otherwise. Shoot, our kids are going to think we are barbarians for a few things, including abortion, I believe. Hopefully the volumes of internet information will allow them to more easily assess the reality of this at that time. Who knows, maybe some Christian kids will read our discussion here and and go
Agreed. It isn't always but when they are militant against His deity, there is a significant problem. There are actually a few on here that aren't militant and I appreciate those arians. It puts me in the arrogant position again, but this is a serious issue for me and 'arrogance' isn't what I'm on about. It isn't my ego that is actually getting in the way....
Well, perhaps if you are only getting on the term 'trinity' but the ideas it encapsulates, I believe, are both.
Again, I believe it simply was unecessary to be so precise until the heresies.
I don't have to sit you down and explain detailed and clearly what I believe as much as when someone is trying to lead you away from a truth. Such, then, necessitates that I do so. This, I believe, is what a perusal of ECF's tells us.
It does seem to have stopped the practice of naming your kids Apollinarus, and Nestorius... The problem is/was not so much the speculation of ideas of explaining scripture truths. The problem is when those ideas lend to discount or trampling other scripture truths. I am always trying to come up with ideas and models that explain the deity and humanity of Christ in a manner that honors scripture. If you say "that's heresy" what you are telling me is the idea doesn't line up with all of scripture. That's fine. It is when I become unteachable and try to force the idea that I become a heretic. I never want to be a leader or follower of such mule-headed stubborness. If my concept formed from scripture doesn't embrace the whole, go ahead and broaded my understanding. At the same time, because this issue has ever been hammered upon throughout these past centuries, I don't think our terms created in a void. That said, latching onto any one idea, can land any one of us into heretical bins. There are heretic pitfalls all over the place I personally want to avoid. As such, I've been called at least heterodox for bad analogy concerning Triune expressions. I don't "wan't" to be heterodox so begin reworking what doesn't favor one particular heresy, which in turn, tramples some scriptural aspect of God's expression in Christ. I want to honor and glorify Him as much or more and not detract or turn eyes from Him.
Understood (I think).
Not sure if I understand the main point here with 'omitting central fixture' or 'metaphysical crumbs.'
Er, as I said, we rough-housed quite a bit growing up. I'm likely dysfunctional between care and abuse so don't use me for any kind of reference point other than figuring out just how dysfunctional or functional I may or may not be (and you are certainly welcome to that).
I think sentiments are safely echoed here between us. It doesn't have to be salvific, but it often is. That'd be how I'd do a sloppy-line for the moment. My line isn't to exclude so much as to say eventually this issue has to be crossed for everyone involved in a cult-heresy. One can be mistaken about how they are saved, but if their view of salvation leads to a self-imposed lifting of one's own bootstraps and Jesus Christ being a 'good example,' of getting there, they are in trouble.
Truncated from here. If I missed something pertinent in favor of inane, a slap will suffice.
Krsto
Well-known member
Oh good grief. Please take your vileness somewhere else.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Quote:
Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
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.
This is interesting. Perhaps for the sake of communication both of you can answer these questions with Jesus praying to God in mind:
No. The prosopon (person) of the externalized hypostasis (substance) praying to the ousia (essence), which is God. But without framing the context relative to transcendence and eternity, it likely won't be understood.
Two, but only because the Logos was Incarnate as the Son and it's a human will (somewhat similar to the O/orhtodox Cyriian Hypostatic Union, but without all the multiple hypostasis mumbo jumbo).
No. The Son had a human soul with a mind and will.
An uncreated man (via procession and conception), in whom dwelleth the fullness of the Theotes bodily.
No. The MonoHypostatic Trinity doesn't have multiple persons. "Person" is an English misnomer for hypostasis, which is substance.
A "personal" (adjectival) ousia (essence) and a prosopon (person).
The Bible tells us. I only utilize that which scripture gives us. Hebrews 1:3 begins, along with 2Corinthians 2:10 among others. The express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon. The Son is the earthly-immanent prosopon of the heavenly-immanent hypostasis of the utterly transcendent ousia of God.
The entire exegsis is quite involved and lengthy, including lexical content.
See above. You won't piece it together yet. It has to be framed with the appropriate Cosmogony, etc.
God is not one "person". God is one hypostasis (substance) of one ousia (essence). The prosopon is the outwardly visible of the hypostasis.
The prosopon of the Son.
God is not "persons" of ANY quantity. He's adjectivally "personal", but only the Incarnate Logos is a prosopon.
I'll send you a PM and outline it from the beginning. It'd be easier over a pizza.
Lon
Well-known member
There is some sense of 'two' conveyed here or neither of us could be tri-une. We agree with the unitarians concerning the distinction, but remember John 1:1 conveys both 'with' and 'was' in the same breath: Both tri-and -une.
Again from John, Jesus in the Garden says 'not my will but thine.' I see how pps addresses this from his perspective, but of course scriputure conveys two separate wills: "Not my will, but Thine..."
"Yes" --> "with" and "was." How can such actually be? Because, and importantly, scripture says so. John 1:1
Both, and carefully. I think scriptures express this clearly, if not 100% apprehended: Not only do we have John 1:1 that unapologetically equates, we have Isaiah 9:6 as well, where Son is unapologetically also "Mighty God, everlasting Father."
One God. Again, John 1:1 says 'with' and 'was' verbatim.
How are/is He/they two (three) and one? I do agree with Pps this is what we are all answering with our systematics, but for me, a denial of any part of clear scripture is problematic. I probably seem and have seemed obstinate and arrogant, but I'm defending every jot and tiddle of inspiration of revelation.
Again, somehow both "with" and "is" God. It is so easy to inadvertently step upon another scripture in formulating an answer and so a good many of us past and present have tried to be very careful here. Most would say God in three persons. I believe my Multnomah professor also shared the same misgivings regarding 'persons' as Pps here. The problem is such an idea conveys a physical and human concept more than reflecting Spirit realities and the transcendence of God. Such, I think cause similarly, Unitarian and Modal problems as well as all other problematic ideas. When we are talking about two vs one, we are talking about a property of God that belongs to Him as a Spirit. There are no two separate entities, in a physical sense. We don't know exactly how Father and Son exist as one and then communicate separately. I really can't describe being able to be be 'with' and 'in a state' of being one and the same but scripture says it verbatim.
Is this it?
Jesus as the son of God is essential belief---
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
LA
That is not what Trinitarians say. Lon is Trinitarian and I asked him.
Of course they do not say what the scripture plainly says.
That is why they are trinitarian.
LA
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'll respond to the previous lenghty post and then this one. But I thought it would be helpful to post the following affirmations in a cohesive format, along with the disaffirmations at the end.
OUTLINE OF THEOLOGY PROPER
I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Sprit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Son (Word) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Authentically Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is authentically human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made (NOT created) Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Neither the procession(s) nor the conception were a creative act; nor did the procession(s) represent emanation.
F/S/HS are all distinct, all uncreated, all eternal, all non-modal, all concurrent, all con-substantial, ontological Deity by substance and subsistence. The Father is not the Son is not the Father (are not the Holy Spirit).
But God is NOT three hypostases/one ousia as a Trinity of three "persons"/one "being".
I'm not ANY of the following:
Tritheist
Triadist
Trinitarian (DyoHypostatic)
Bitheist
Ditheist
Dyadist
Binitarian
Unitarian
Socinian
Christadelphian
Ebionitist
Adoptionist
Pneumatomachianist
Sabellian
Monarchian
Patripassian
Arian
OR any number of over 60 other isms.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I don't recall you asking me anything.
Personally, I don't think many others want to converse with you. I tried very cordially and it wasn't very productive.
As for being ignored, I'd think that might be sowing and reaping from having placed so many members on Ignore.
I think you could make a good case for pacifism from scripture, and it would be much more effective to frame it up from the text than to berate and demean others with ad hominem.
Just a few thoughts about why others may be ignoring you.
Peace in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Personally, I don't think many others want to converse with you. I tried very cordially and it wasn't very productive.[/quote]
I am sorry but I don't waste my time explaining the same thing over and over with meaningless doctrine talk. I don't understand why non-trins are on the Christians forum
May I ask you why?
blessings.
I wanted talk to Lon about simple Christianity but it is ignored by both trins and non-trins alike. But trins are vicious the way they spread hate filled gospel which is not of Jesus.
The evidence shows that you are so filled with venomous hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with every word you post that all you can see is hatred.
You need help.