I know you may want me to just skip all this and proceed with later posts, but I want to address some of this to contextualize my position on other views of Theology Proper versus salvation, etc.
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.
We rough-housed a lot growing up. It is probably dysfunctional.
What I thought would be just another egomaniacal indoctrinate butting heads with me has actually turned into a potentially high quality extended convo. I have great hopes for much synergy after the recent disarmament.
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.
Ew! I just had an Origen flashback. How could you?
:rotfl:
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.'
Bear in mind by my comments, I adamantly contend for the Deity of Christ. In fact, my primary criticism of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine is that is diminshed the full Deity of Christ (but you won't yet comprehend why).
As for "man can't do it". Sinful man can't do it. No Pelagianism allowed, even by degree. Man cannot effect salvation. But...... The Socinian groups (Unitarians and Christadelphians) aren't repesenting Jesus as a man in the sense the Ebionites have/do. The conception was a divine creative act by God through His Holy Spirit. Many will speculate it to be a created spermatozoa. Others won't dare speculate. All insist it was a miraculous conception by none other than God Himself; and that it was the conception of a sinless man.
I don't think that inherently leaves them outside the faith any more than a more correct view would include them in the faith. I've heard virtually every nuance of every argument related to the Deity of Christ on either side. I just don't think it's the pivotal point of salvific faith. I was lost as a DyoHypoTrin raised under the pew. It's about whether the heart hears the Rhema for faith. It's other compounded Unitarian doctrines that push them further from the threshhold. (And I'm never speaking of American Universalist New Age Unis when I refer to Unitarians.)
So when I say they're potentially eligible for salvific faith, I'm not automatically including them. I'm saying it's an individual heart issue. That's not the case with other Sects that have formulated doctrines of God that are beyond this line.
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.
And I know how much they abhor the validly-criticized errors of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. They won't accept the "how" for the Deity of Christ because DyoHypoTrin is unbiblical. They're not going to be persuaded by conflict. I've effectively ministered to many of them, and they often have their eyes opened when the truth is revealed (which is MonoHypoTrin).
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:
In the Unitarian view, there IS divine intervention. God created a sinless man. They consider that to be divine intervention. They're not promoting another YHWH or another Jesus. They're challenging that he's ontologically divine rather than divine by identity and representation. I don't automatically exclude OR include them; just as I don't automatically exclude OR include Dyohypostatic Trinitarians in the faith. It's a heart by heart issue, not a knowledge of doctrine issue.
How many children of either faith can comprehend either one? How many professing (alleged) Trinitarians have anything more than a nebulous cursory minimal comprehension of their own creedal doctrine? Few, in my experience.
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)."
I understand everything you've said. I've said everything you've said at one time or another. I can't hold that position regarding others' salvation. There's a perimeter for eligible belief. It isn't exclusively DyoHypoTrin doctrine, and it can't include LDS, JW, and others. But those who are wrestling with the true monotheistic JHWH while presenting another Christology based on mistaking the conception for a creative act, I can't dismiss out of hand as unsaved.
This is not the all magical answer to this dilemma.
Agreed.
Modalists and Arians are monohypostatic too.
And neither is further or closer to the truth than the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. I haven't yet unveiled the central truth that ALL views have omitted, but it leaves everyone scrambling. Most just engage full cognitive dissonance and maintain their predetermined subjective beliefs.
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.
O/orthodoxy is heterodox. Now what? There aren't multiple hypostases for God in scripture. A hypostasis isn't a "person", either. The burrito has donkey meat. Now what?
You aren't aware of it yet, but the DyoHypoTrin doctrine represents an immanent and impotent God who couldn't and didn't create ALL. (But so do all the other historical formulations.) I'll get to that.
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.
"Cult" is another term that is tossed around a lot. All sectarian belief systems are "cults", technically. And I'm grudgingly Trinitarian, but have adapted the Monohypostatic label to distinguish. Too many idjuts continuously spewed ad hominem that I was a Modalist. I'm clearly not a Modalist to any degree.
Why? Because you have to then allow Muhammed and Joseph Smith up there on your list of 'acceptable.'
Ummm... nope, not even close. The Muslim faith is Henotheistic, regardless what many mask their faith to be. Allah is not YHWH.
The LDSers have cunningly positioned themselves, but their God is not YHWH, either. The LDS god is an imaginary diety. They're not worshipping YHWH as a whole.
The JWs present a created angel who became a man. And there are many other abherant sub-doctrines, just like the LDS.
The key distinction is whether there was a divine conception by YHWH. And I'd certainly leave room for maturity of age and spiritual growth for those with wrong Christology. Goodness, many professing Trinitarians are either Modalists or Triadists by default of their own descriptions of the Trinity. Water-Ice-Steam equals Modalism. Multiple minds/wills equals Triadism.
"Your" line doesn't disclude them
My line indeed excludes the Muslims, LDS, and JWs. But even some of them may have salvific faith. I don't know the bounds of God's grace and mercy at this point.
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.
Not necessarily. That's your perspective. But you have an erroneous doctrine, too. You just presume you don't.
[qutoe]Imho, you have got to change and capitulate with other trinitarians. I don't see a way out of it.[/quote]
Nope. I don't engage in the dialectic for the consensus of men. I only adhere to the didactic of God by His Word and His Spirit. I will not capitulate to other Trinitarians, especially when they're professing DyoHypos. God isn't three hypostases.
Yep. Muhammed and Joseph Smith as well.
Nope.
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.
Sure it is. And I'm not including them on any wholesale basis and endorsing Arian doctrine. But a created celestial Son being Incarnate as Theanthropos isn't even remotely the same error of a created angel becoming a non-divine man. Nor is it the same degree of error as a Polytheistic non-YHWH with opportunity for man to become divine as well. Huge differences.
Er, Joseph Smith claims "Son of God" too.
I'm not talking about jargon and labels. I'm referring to entire doctrines. LDS doctrine doesn't include YHWH. Again, some individuals might have salvific faith, but it would be in spite of the doctrine rather than because of it.
Your line, imo, is faulty and wrong.
Great. You've drawn your line. It's not mine.
Whatever hang-up, with whatever church, I think must/needs to be reconcilled.
I don't know why you presume my entire stance on Theology Proper is somehow in vengeful retaliation to some church or denomination.
Your line, I believe, must exist within the triune framework to remain triune yourself (I believe triune more accurate than 'trinity' btw).
What? You can't draw those lines for me. And I don't forfeit my position just because I don't inherently exclude certain other en masse. I make no attempt to draw them for you or demand you acquiesce to mine. All I've done is delineate a summary of my reasoning. And I'm not triune in any sense that you are, really. I don't mistake the heavenly-immanent realm for transcendence. But we'll get to that.
Of course, that's why the pitfalls are all heresies and to be avoided.
Back briefly to a point you made several times earlier. The Trinity doctrine is NOT just apophatic to avoid alleged heresies. The Trinity doctrine is explicitly cataphatic. It declares exactly the position on God's constitution.
I'm not O/orthodox in that regard, and I don't give a rip. I stand for the truth of scripture regardles of the errors of men's doctrine. Nobody will stand in judgment for me but me. I don't leave Theology Proper for others to decide for me. I did it for 35 years, and I won't ever do it again.
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.
The Modalists are really no further from the truth than DyoHypoTrins. It's a Pick 'Em for me. Usually, I'll take a good Oneness believer over an indoctrinated and ideologized modern Triadist that doesn't know they're not a Creedal Trinitarian.
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.
I agree. Unitarians, Arians, and Sabellians don't accept the bogus "how" of the term triune, though. That's because of the error of DyoHypoTrin doctrine. I can't blame them.
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.
Okay. And I do not. I accept your position. I was already aware of it. It doesn't and won't change mine. I haven't come to my position lightly or casually.
That's like saying there is no believer who believed Jesus came in the flesh, against Docetism, before 1 John 4:2 to me.
LOL. Not at all. Seriously? You so phunny.
Rather, some things aren't 'express' until the need to correct heresy but that doesn't mean the 'implicit/explicit' idea is not there.
I don't really want to engage in a semantics war. We evidently view explicit versus implicit differently, just as we don't agree on exegesis versus eisegesis. Maybe that will be resolved, but it currently isn't.
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.
We can get into the history, but few are as well-read as I have intentionally become. The first hints of Trinity emerged in the 160s to 180s AD, with the first real usage of the terms "persona" and "trinitas" in the early 200s AD.
It would be more accurate to insist that the majority of the Ante-Nicene authors of any significance almost assuredly supported the Deity of Christ and that F/S/HS were all God in some manner.
You don't get 'triune' all of the sudden, just because someone doesn't like arians at a 2nd century council.
No, it didn't happen suddenly. But the first Ecumenical Council wasn't in the 2nd century, it was in 325AD. There's quite a span from the ascension of Christ and Pentecost (circa 27-29AD) to the 160sAD; and from the 160sAD to the Nicene Council 160-ish years later.
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.
Origen died about the time Arius was born. But the war was waging long before Arius was born, and he wasn't the originator of the doctrine of a created celestial Son who was homioousios with the Father rather than homoousios. He was just the emergent vital proponent.
Yep, to Modalist's chagrin.
More so to the Dynamic Modalist Monarchians than the Sequential Modalist Patripassians and Sabellians, I'd say. And Tertullian was a Subordinationist Semi-Arian who later became a Montanist. I love his writings, though.
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
Okay. I don't separate them, necessarily.
Agreed. It isn't always but when they are militant against His deity, there is a significant problem.
No more so than being militant that there are three "persons" because of personal pronouns, etc. Especially for all the modern Triadists that aren't actual Trinitarians.
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....
It's lack of awareness of one central truth that changes everything if it's understood.
Well, perhaps if you are only getting on the term 'trinity' but the ideas it encapsulates, I believe, are both.
I know you do.
Again, I believe it simply was unecessary to be so precise until the heresies.
There's a degree of truth in that; but you dismiss any possibility that the DyoHypoTrin view has any real error itself.
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.
Meh. I don't wholly agree, but it's not the central content. I'll just move on for now.
It does seem to have stopped the practice of naming your kids Apollinarus, and Nestorius...
I don't know a whole lot of parents naming their kids Cyril, either. Or Athanaius or Clement or Augustine. :rotfl:
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.
Oh. Like making the express image OF God's hypostasis an additional hypostasis, with a third manufactured to round out the trio inferred from personal pronouns that also refer to the singular of Theos? LOL.
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.
For the DyoHypoTrin doctrine, the Cyrillian does that. You won't improve that. There just aren't multiple hypostases, so it doesn't matter.
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.
There ya go. Good example. Well said.
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.
Give me some time and you won't be a DyoHypoTrin. Nobody who has ever sat down with me personally or sat under my teaching has ever remained a DyoHypoTrin. It's not possible once you understand the central missing truth apart from massive cognitive dissonance.
I'm teaching a group of Pastors right now in a small group, and each one of them are abandoning the DyoHypo view for the truth. Once I frame it up, it's over.
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.
Exactly. They were created by the dialectic consensus of men to portray a preconceived concept. I think it was the best they could do. But they missed the one foundational truth that changes everything.
That said, latching onto any one idea, can land any one of us into heretical bins.
Boy, that was a mouthful.
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.
You'd probably like to correctly represent God as having created ALL, then. The DyoHypoTrin God couldn't and didn't. Eek!
Understood (I think).
Not sure if I understand the main point here with 'omitting central fixture' or 'metaphysical crumbs.'
With the DyoHypoTrin doctrine and ALL other historical God-models, there's something God didn't create. It shifts the entire foundation. We'll get to it.
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.
Okay.
Truncated from here. If I missed something pertinent in favor of inane, a slap will suffice.
No slappage. This seems to be going much better than I ever imagined. Very fruitful, IMHO.
