Very few I've encountered would agree with three expressions, and I spent a number of years in a Oneness fellowship while eschewing any contact with DyoHypoTrins. I couldn't stay there, though.
But good for them if they do. I don't. God isn't three same-somethings; and there's only one manifestation. And Modalists didn't consider the processions from transcendence into a created heaven that they know nothing about, just like all others.
I'm dead-center on scripture. It wasn't an accident.
I have solid problems with modalism. I have some with your position in that you seem to think an 'event' conveys a difference or change in the nature of God.
Some see it from one prespective and some see it from the other. I see it as reconciliation of all degrees of incompleteness to the central objective truth of scripture. The MonoHypoTrin position does that.
So.... okay. Correction can be reconciliation, and is applicable.
Because of that, I'll wonder about your position, probably for weeks to come. I don't think but that I can label it as a kind of hybrid of modal/triune thinking, for current assessment.
It's a reconciliation OF them, and all others. All opposing historical formulations were attemtping to compensate for the missing foundation of a created eternity. Since none could account for the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma from transcendence into created eternity, ALL views combine transcendence and eternity, and formulate from various emphases and priorities of perspective while combining them. Each mistakes certain portions for whatever reasons.
DyoHypoTrin mistakes the processed two-fold hypostasis and the ousia as one ousia in three hypostases; also declaring internal processions and other minutiae like perichoresis to compensate.
It's no small thing to omit the creation of eternity and the processions from God's transcendence into it. But nobody has ever recognized that eternity is created. Nobody.
Arians mistake the procession of the Logos for a celestial creative act. Unitarians mistake the conception of the Logos for a terrestrial creative act. Sabellians mistake the same thing as DyoHypoTrins but with sequential manifestations instead of simultaneous "persons". Others mistake other things or compounds of things.
The problem is... DyoHypoTrins don't like to be corrected since they're the status quo of O/orthodoxy. And few can begin to fathom the truth without extensive caricature that doesn't and can't apply.
Most just want to adopt a created eternity and keep their Trinitarianism of "persons"; but they're incompatible.
God isn't and can't be both. God is a singular hypostasis. Any triplicate of same-somethings is unbiblical. And there aren't just any ol' semantics that can be used plug-n-play.
Both is not ignoring. If you want to say I'm not logical, I've no problem with that. The doctrine isn't wholly apprehended by me, but probably 'what it is not.' I 'think' I've got a decent grasp, however slippery, but I don't mind someone else's assessment. I'm an artist and am pretty good, but I don't take time to really draw my self-portrait accurately (can only stand so much introspection). I just don't assess 'ignorant' of myself at this time.
I appreciate your efforts. I just don't think you get that God isn't three same-somethings. And if a hypostasis is a "person", then God is only one "person". But a hypostasis isn't a "person". That's why there can be a qualitatively two-fold singular hypostasis. It's a substance. A Divine substance.
▲Similarly▲ your own risidual self-image might not be how other's see you.
If it's not the Rhema, it doesn't matter; but okay.
I think those who have been through God's nature in Systematic Theology class, have thought of these issues and wrestled with them, so I don't think there is anything new there.
There isn't anyone I've encountered who has wrestled with or understood that eternity of the metaphysical heavenly realm is created. And if they have, they just want to somehow retain their incompatible DyoHypoTrin understanding.
You haven't, imo, revealed anything new to me at this venture.
When have you heard the discussion of eternity being created?
I also believe, we understand our triune terms, if not understood in the context of scriptures or if overtly purported can be problematic, but these are 'term' problems, not idea problems.
Not in this manner. It isn't just about the "physical" concept of persons. It's about there not being a same-something triplicate of AND semantic that can be plugged in; and that there shouldn't be a semantics shuffle at all. God is ONE expression of terminologies in ONE arragement and quantity. You don't give ANY of the other views any degree of that same latitude.
DyoHyoTrin is the only view that is either adamantly declared or turns into a Scrabble game of semantics to plug into the predetermined concept.
Lay people do not get to this exacting of a discussion, but I'm quite comfortable with the triune expressions.
Of course you are. You are one. I'm not. I despise error and the manner in which DyoHypoTrins have dealt with others when they're in heresy themselves but it's been "legalized" by Councils that most reject all the surrounding for anyway.
Just because Arians mistake the procession of the Logos as a creative act, it doesn't mean they're inherently any more wrong than DyoHypoTrins who claim extra-biblical multiple hypostases, even if they're on a scavenger hunt for potentially better same-something semantics.
The same is true for those mistaking the conception of the Logos as a creative act; or those who mistake F/S/HS for sequential manifestations.
Wrong is wrong. An omitted created eternity is a large omission, and it affects everything in many areas of theology.
Laugh as you like. You can't even simplify your allegation, let alone lay out my view in laymen's terms or your own in laymen's terms.
Sure I can, and did. My allegeation is that DyoHypoTrin presents extra-biblical multiple hypostases and an UNcreated eternity that leaves God contingent upon a realm for His existence rather than being utterly transcendent and Self-existent.
Your view is three "persons" in one "being" by any flexible semantics you might choose if challenged.
My view is that God is a transcendent essence (ousia) who created eternity and termporality by His Word and the host of them by His Spirit when/as He INhabiteth it. The Word and the Spirit and a two-fold substance OF His essence, and the Logos became flesh as Jesus Christ.
It's not my fault you and everyone else contend God is an ineffable mystery; expect any explanation and terms for Theology Proper to be simplistic and accessable to a preschooler; and then still adamantly declare an extensive cataphatic while anathametizing anyone who dares challenge any points that leave them vulnerable to their own ignorance and paradoxical gibberish while trying to explain anything.
Like marginal Trins using water-ice-steam for Trinity.
Maybe it is my gifting, but if I come to someone with a correction, I'm usually fairly competent to make it plain to them.
I did that. Over and over. You STILL haven't heard it. There aren't three hypostases. Eternity is created. That's about as simple a correction as is possible. You just continue to say nuh-uh and retain your triplicate same-somethings.
That doesn't mean they must agree, but I 'think' every unitarian (for instance)on TOL knows exactly what I believe and exactly what problems I have with their doctrine.
You have the advantage of nearly two millennia as delineated and leveraged O/orthodoxy. The vast majority of professing Trinitarians couldn't give more than two rote paragraphs with little or no scripture. It's a concept, and they're adamant or sorta universalist.
Very (incredibly) simply, Unitarians believe Christ is a created being who did not exist prior to incarnation. Scripture plainly says He did/does.
Just because you don't recognize it, it doesn't mean I haven't done that
Try another? Sure: Mormonism: The basic difference between myself and a Mormon is they do not understand the deity of Christ as unique and unnattainable. For them, Jesus is no more or less than any man like Joseph Smith, who attained godliness.
I didn't know you wanted the empty kindergarten version. I presumed you were someone of full age to partake of meat rather than a bite of a bland snack.
I already did, long ago. God isn't three hypostases. The end. :wave:
"The triune view is more difficult to traverse."
Agreed, however, here it is in an easily understood nutshell in a very short space:
"The triune/trinitarian view is one that believes God has described/revealed Himself in scripture as one God expressed as three distinct 'existences' as Father, Son, and Spirit ("being" or "persons" are clearer for conveyance and discussion).
Seriously?!?! Scripture has ONE hypostasis for God. Period. That's what I utilize. You have three in opposition to scripture. You continue to not only gloss that, but now assert that I have the wrong number of hypostases.
Go buy a Bible and read. The only hypostasis in scripture for God is in Hebrews 1:3, and there's only ONE.
not that you've been easily or entirely clear by any means. I can, I think, however assert it is you based on your stated purpose and self-placement outside of trinitarians and our doctrines.
I've done that because of stubborn refusal by DyoHypoTrins to recognize their error, and do inane things like contend that I have the wrong number of hypostases.
Good and grief. You wouldn't face the truth of there not being three hypostases if your salvation depended on it and Jesus Christ Himself walked up to you and read Hebrews 1:3 while telling He wasn't one of three hypostases as part of a DyoHypoTrin doctrine of men.
This is the stubborn ignorance that keeps me distanced from the arroganct ideology and indoctrination of the DyoHypoTrins. It's inexcusable, especially when it's been clearly delineated a bazillion times.
Er, then two of them aren't God. In order for there to be a tri-une God, He must be One God (same something) and three distinctions.
You are incredibly more modal than you think you are. Just because you have some 'distinctions' like any other modalist, doesn't mean you aren't one. They agree with the idea of some distinction.
It doesn't matter if 'You are a heretic and so am I." Such does no good because we still disagree. I believe I'm classical triune and no professor ever clubbed me and told me I'm not. My grades were fairly decent here.
Very few I've encountered would agree with three expressions, and I spent a number of years in a Oneness fellowship while eschewing any contact with DyoHypoTrins. I couldn't stay there, though.
Modalism "Expressions" meaning, ways one God played/plays 3 parts or is given 3 different names. I'm aware that it is a superficial separation for them, I'm just saying that they aren't too far from you, on this particular, but yes, you are an amalgamation of unitarian/triune/modal views.
But good for them if they do. I don't. God isn't three same-somethings; and there's only one manifestation. And Modalists didn't consider the processions from transcendence into a created heaven that they know nothing about, just like all others.
Again, I perceive you don't get your own imposed 'created'-thinking injections into your logic. I simply embrace language to the extent it is able to convey infinite portions of ideas. Such can never convey the infinite adequately, as it is limited and always 'catching up' with the elusive, but I realize we strongly disagree on this point.
Rather, I think you 'pick and choose' in your stance. You inadvertenly, aren't consistent or able to be. You seem mostly between triune and modal to me, but have some unitarian oddities as well. I really haven't seen scriptures from you much if at all this week.
Some see it from one prespective and some see it from the other. I see it as reconciliation of all degrees of incompleteness to the central objective truth of scripture. The MonoHypoTrin position does that.
So.... okay. Correction can be reconciliation, and is applicable.
It's a reconciliation OF them, and all others. All opposing historical formulations were attemtping to compensate for the missing foundation of a created eternity. Since none could account for the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma from transcendence into created eternity, ALL views combine transcendence and eternity, and formulate from various emphases and priorities of perspective while combining them. Each mistakes certain portions for whatever reasons.
DyoHypoTrin mistakes the processed two-fold hypostasis and the ousia as one ousia in three hypostases; also declaring internal processions and other minutiae like perichoresis to compensate.
Both internal and external, as ideas, are limited in conveyance. When we express either, there is a certain amount of potentially wrong inference that can come with them and as such, I applaud lexical work and lengthy discussion. Here is a very basic gist: Everything comes from God. "Internal" and "external" convey ideas in a physical sense to us, as if God must have an 'inside' and an 'outside.' As a non-physical, spiritual God, we are only getting the tip of the iceberg when He tells us information. It isn't that such isn't true, but that we can quickly misread the truth and get it perfectly wrong within our limitation of conception. The Word did not just come from God, He was God (with and was).
It's no small thing to omit the creation of eternity and the processions from God's transcendence into it. But nobody has ever recognized that eternity is created. Nobody.
Arians mistake the procession of the Logos for a celestial creative act. Unitarians mistake the conception of the Logos for a terrestrial creative act. Sabellians mistake the same thing as DyoHypoTrins but with sequential manifestations instead of simultaneous "persons". Others mistake other things or compounds of things.
You actually, whether you see it or not, are also confining God to a space-time consideration. A spirit can and is 'both' -une and expressed -tri. We make distinction simply because scripture/revelation makes it. We cannot but believe scripture.
At this point, I think you place faith in Christ as God. I simply 'think' you needing to reconcile more thought as you go through scripture (not that I'm any grand-assessor, just my in thread observations and summizing).
The problem is... DyoHypoTrins don't like to be corrected since they're the status quo of O/orthodoxy. And few can begin to fathom the truth without extensive caricature that doesn't and can't apply.
That's ever the case. For me, I see the book of Hebrews differently than most Christians. I know already, when I come to it, I have to caveate and grovel (and I do). On top of that, I HATE being novel, so want to grovel anyway. Orthodox is the comfortable position for me. The only reason I rock the boat concerning Hebrews is because my belief affects my understanding on the important doctrine of security. However, I express they are very right to criticize and call me on my thoughts. For me, "I know" and "I'm still working on it" and "take this with about a gazillion grains of salt." However, when I bring that up, I'm not trying to change anybody, I think scripture reading sufficient unto Him and itself. Rather, I'm trying to just tell them, usually, why I think the way I do on a given particular point (mostly - eternal security).
God isn't and can't be both. God is a singular hypostasis. Any triplicate of same-somethings is unbiblical. And there aren't just any ol' semantics that can be used plug-n-play.
Incorrect. Logically? No. Scripturally, it is a given. It doesn't matter if you or I like it: Rather I'm concerned we are not erasing 'and' from our bibles. Without question, I believe it given. Clearly? Yes, that it is there. No, in that we might not get it very well. Isaiah 9:6 is no easy mental meditation for me.
I appreciate your efforts. I just don't think you get that God isn't three same-somethings. And if a hypostasis is a "person", then God is only one "person". But a hypostasis isn't a "person". That's why there can be a qualitatively two-fold singular hypostasis. It's a substance. A Divine substance.
I think I 'get' it because I struggled with it! That doesn't mean I'm not understanding you today. I fought long and hard and in blood for this triune position. I am first to agree with any shortcomings, but such, for me, is land-locked expressions between the finite and the infinite.
And you are modal (not modal theology, modal one-being as a person/man), God is not. Being a different person to your boss than to your mother and then to your wife is yet modal though 3 fairly different aspects of who you are.
We don't have John 17 moments where we talk to ourselves and ask ourselves to answer requests. Scripture, I'm convinced, presents God differently than this allows.
You should, when possible, use more common phrases such as "Scripture" or "word of God" when available. I think I appreciate 'exacting' but don't shy away from inexacting when such is rather a passing comment that can be conveyed without a whole lot of scrutiny. Even if they do, just tell them not to get side-tracked. "Scripture" or "God's Word" would have conveyed nicely here.
There isn't anyone I've encountered who has wrestled with or understood that eternity of the metaphysical heavenly realm is created. And if they have, they just want to somehow retain their incompatible DyoHypoTrin understanding.
I have. Rather, I've come away with a realization that God's reality is 'alien' to our own. Such demands commonalities and I believe He sufficiently meets those commonalities. However, God is so vastly (see my sig verse below) different/beyond us, we see but through a glass darkly 1 Corinthians 13:9-11. A little bit of God is conveyed to us as He explains Himself to us in our comprehension ability. I believe God left the triune model because it is the best one in which to hang our scriptural understandings upon. It is not a completed picture, however of God. Moses was told he'd die if he saw that much (Ephesians 3:20 & 21 with Exodus 33:20).
Terms (in case we are not on the same page, for reference only):
Infinite possibilities: No spectrum of cognitive limitation. No starting point, nothing to measure.
Lines are infinite: Line's go on forever. We can't draw them so put arrows on either end.
Rays are both finite and infinite, depending upon the considered point or the unmeasurable extending property. An artificial point on the line creates two rays. Putting the point on the line makes two rays that are both finite and infinite in properties.
Segments are finite (for the most part): Putting a second point on the line, creates an artificial parameter of examination that can hold finite meaning to us expressed as numbers, duration, or change. You can divide a segment without stopping, but the line is a finite creation which has a definite beginning, ending, and definite measurement of numerical expression, duration, and change.
Quick discussion: Every math student is aware that a line is created when I draw. To think that eternity is 1) merely bidurational is incorrect as any infinite number of parallel lines can be made, intersect, make a plane, etc. etc. etc. 2) Time is also a property in mathematics, of a physical consideration and Einstein tied the two together a long time ago, so I'm not certain how you can think you are original with the idea that God created the infinite which is a time consideration. Infinite is merely a physical consideration or series of considerations regarding creation. Augustine had given us time and thus the property of 'eternity' within its considerations, as part of God's creation a long time ago also.
Well of course. That is what the doctrines and creeds were written to do. There are a LOT of people who prefer the metric system and complain about U.S. measurements. I'm still getting gas by the gallon, which is more than a liter. Bloom where you are planted.
Of course you are. You are one. I'm not. I despise error and the manner in which DyoHypoTrins have dealt with others when they're in heresy themselves but it's been "legalized" by Councils that most reject all the surrounding for anyway.
Just because Arians mistake the procession of the Logos as a creative act, it doesn't mean they're inherently any more wrong than DyoHypoTrins who claim extra-biblical multiple hypostases, even if they're on a scavenger hunt for potentially better same-something semantics.
Sure I can, and did. My allegeation is that DyoHypoTrin presents extra-biblical multiple hypostases and an UNcreated eternity that leaves God contingent upon a realm for His existence rather than being utterly transcendent and Self-existent.
Er, you must have different laymen than I have....
Regardless, I've said God is both and said it a lot more simply than you have by quoting and requoting John 1:1 that says 'both' explicit/implicitly.
Your view is three "persons" in one "being" by any flexible semantics you might choose if challenged.
My view is that God is a transcendent essence (ousia) who created eternity and termporality by His Word and the host of them by His Spirit when/as He INhabiteth it. The Word and the Spirit and a two-fold substance OF His essence, and the Logos became flesh as Jesus Christ.
It's not my fault you and everyone else contend God is an ineffable mystery; expect any explanation and terms for Theology Proper to be simplistic and accessable to a preschooler; and then still adamantly declare an extensive cataphatic while anathametizing anyone who dares challenge any points that leave them vulnerable to their own ignorance and paradoxical gibberish while trying to explain anything.
Like marginal Trins using water-ice-steam for Trinity.
Shoot, I've used 'clones' by example. Such is very limited to physical expression, but it allows me to talk about Dolly the Sheep who is one sheep in two expressions. The 'material' is all one sheep, but two sheep exist. There is nothing in the 'second' Dolly that wasn't there before. We randomly say Dolly #1 and Dolly #2 but both are Dolly and she is one sheep somehow and two sheep somehow. I've no problem with you saying this about Dolly. It is all true. It doesn't matter if I'm confused walking away. I cannot change Dolly or the expression of Dolly. Cloning her created a huge confusing dialogue to even try to express her. God is way beyond our expressions. "Both" is an excellent word and John 1:1 uses it.
I did that. Over and over. You STILL haven't heard it. There aren't three hypostases. Eternity is created. That's about as simple a correction as is possible. You just continue to say nuh-uh and retain your triplicate same-somethings.
You have the advantage of nearly two millennia as delineated and leveraged O/orthodoxy. The vast majority of professing Trinitarians couldn't give more than two rote paragraphs with little or no scripture. It's a concept, and they're adamant or sorta universalist.
But not as you insist. You're both wrong, but you can't see yours.
Assertion. I think I can appreciate learning to be more exacting and I take that from our conversation this past week (not that I don't work at it). You might try taking simplified and laymen's expression if you can see it (I think you think lexiconally, so might be quite a bit more confortable and perhaps project it onto others, but either they/we are too lazy, don't think this way, or aren't this smart). AMR (he addressed you earlier), thinks like this too though. It isn't 'bad' company, it is just a 'small' company you keep. We aren't all there. I 'work' to be there but refreshers and more study are always a must for me to come along (I've had to study quite a bit more , I'd wager, than you did; to carry on this conversation with you this week).
Depends where we are. Forums, I generally try to ensure other's can follow along. It is the nature of them. There are some great and heady forums too, but those groups....and I'm way in over my head. It is a good way to learn to swim but sometimes I turn blue and hope they don't notice as I exit the pool. The greek ones, I just sit in the shallow end or inch my way closer holding onto the wall.
Just because you don't recognize it, it doesn't mean I haven't done that
I don't agree, but welcome to entirely missing the point, while inadvertenly proving mine: You asserted with hot air sandwiches and said 'absolutely nothing.' I know you are typing/talking, but you are zero on communication. "Insufficient. Fail." simply conveys your relative like/dislike as a person.
I didn't know you wanted the empty kindergarten version. I presumed you were someone of full age to partake of meat rather than a bite of a bland snack.
First, some snacks have incredible flavor. At times, I'd rather have a pickle and cream cheese wrapped in a delicate ham slice than the main course. Second, forums are kind of a 'snacky' kind of place. Thirdly, I'm thinking of what others have time for. If you want everyone to benefit, you should think of both those who can sit down for 3 hours and those who have to run through and need it 'on the go.' (this is another gross length monster btw).
What I want to know is what the trinity will be called when the bride becomes spirit? Then there will be the Father, the Son, the bride, and the holy spirit.
I guess trintarians will become known as quaditarians.
I've made it clear in many ways I'm not a Pantheist. I don't represent ANY form or degree of emanation. You've inferred this as you've erroneously inferred the three hypostases as the foundation of your faulty doctrine.
Your own words condemn you. "very substance of His own essence forth"..."the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma being ex-/ek- God's own Self-subsistence and Self-existence INTO eternity when/as He created it. A realm of existence doesn't contain or constrain Him to its existence and subsistence."
And on and on. You are so caught up in trying to speak with flowery words that you do not see how convoluted your view has become.
I'm learned that the more I delineate, the more confused accusations come forth from clueless Trinitarians who don't know much of their own doctrine except pseudo-creedal descriptions. I've found it much more useful to distill my approach to a small profile of assertions and challenges, and it's been at the behest of others who don't like verbose and extended posts.
No, you are but the aristarch who arrogantly assumes all the church divines somehow were "clueless" and now you are here as our oracle to set us all aright. Sigh.
I have. Search for my userid and "Trinity" at this site and you will find yourself quite busy with more than just snippets and teasers. Your turn now. :AMR:
You'll notice I disarmed myself immediately when Lon backed up to do so. Those exchanges have been quite cordial, and I truly respect his attempts to go beyond the status quo. Commendable and rare.
Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; yet at the same time the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Agree so far?
When God the Son assumed a human nature, what was going on in your view?
Was that humanity individuated such that it could exist without the assumption by the divine?
Where is the resurrected and glorified body of Jesus Christ now?
Is the union between the divine and the human still existing?
How many persons existed in the Incarnate Christ?
You continue to cavil about the ignorance of others. First set aside your choleric nature, and if you want academic discussion of a complex theological topic you are hanging around the wrong venues, then foolishly concluding everyone is ignorant.
God isn't multiple hypostases, regardless of what you assign them to be called in any other receptor language. And all "persons" terminology came from hypostases. Period. And the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, NOT another hypostasis with yet a third hypostasis arbitrarily assigned to the HS for purported "equality". Even Calvin did that. I can recite his Institutes if necessary. He coulda really reformed the faith for correction rather than introducing a false dichotomy (though necessary contemporarily because of the Indulgences, etc.).
1. THE doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients thought he spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything we do not see is God (Senec. Præf. lib. 1 Quæst. Nat.) In this way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate portion of the world.
But although God, in order to keep us within the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind.
His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place.
It is true, indeed, that as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the world, that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity.
And here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of God. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.
2. But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge.
Moreover, lest any one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human invention, let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so.
When the Apostle calls the Son of God “the express image of his person,” (Heb. 1:3), he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax), were not only harsh but absurd.
For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper, nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image (χαρακτηρ). But because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him.
And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, viz., that he is “the brightness of his glory.” The fair inference from the Apostle’s words is, that there is a proper subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son.
From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence (hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father.
The same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father.
This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were impious to multiply.
If credit, then, is given to the Apostle’s testimony, it follows that there are three persons (hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑποστασις, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term.
The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three προσωπα (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.
....
6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence.
For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it.
Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other.
Src: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 13, 2, 6).
As Calvin rightly observed having folks like yourself in mind: But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human invention, let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so...The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑποστασις, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term.
The impoverishment of Latin words compared to the Greek is and was well understood by the church. The Latin substance has a etymological connection to hypostasis and its attraction to translators is well-known. Given the fact that substance was used in theology proper, ousia {being, essence}, do we render ousia strictly as essence, assigning substance to hypostasis, leave substance in correspondence with ousia, and translate hypostasis as subsistence. This logomacy has not been fully settled, but it is not as bankrupt as you make it out to be by any means. And it is understood among theologians that hypostasis does not mean person, yet we take no issue when one man prefers hypostasis and another man prefers person.
The plain facts are that person and hypostasis are not immiscible. Scripture sees no issue with person (prosopon) as well. For example, in Hebrews 9:24 it is clear that prosopon is not being used to signify that Father and Son are the same person. Scripture refers to our Lord as a person (2 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10), God the Father as a person (Revelation 6:16; Matthew 18:10;Acts 3:19-20;Hebrews 9:24), and, yes, even the Holy Spirit (Psalm 51:11;Psalm 139:7). Nor was not lost on Boethius, Hippolytus, nor especially Didymus' {'mia ousia, treis hypostases}, and even Origen, also speaking "of the three hypostases", if you have read them.
If you know your history, the Latin terms substantia and subsistentia were often used as synonyms, each word conveying the dual notions of substance and of subsistence. Given this confusion, Christian theologians subsequently fixed the standard usage by affirming three subsistences in one divine substance. The Greek term prosopon, and the Latin word persona, raised similar problems. Prosopon was used of a self-conscious agent, despite the fact that it also properly denoted a face or outward aspect and thusly served the Sabellian modalists just as readily as non-modalists.
In its primary meaning the Latin word persona referred to the mask worn by an actor, and only secondarily to an actor's essential character or role. So for that reason persona, too, was serviceable to modalism. Something of the same ambiguity attached to the Greek term homoousios meaning "sameness of substance". That said, the word left unsure whether that sameness is specific or numeric, and its use provoked accusations of tri-theism while it also promoted monotheism. The Nicene Council stipulated the sense these and other terms were to bear in Christian theology. The Nicene Creed succinctly expresses the orthodox doctrine:
(1) one God;
(2) three persons;
(3) the Son begotten (not made) of the essence of the Father;
(4) the Son consubstantial with the Father;
(5) the Son very God of very God;
(6) the eternity of the Son.
Later, the Athanasian Creed affirms:
(1) the unity of God;
(2) the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit;
(3) the unity of the divine substance;
(4) the equal divinity, glory, and majesty of the persons;
(5) the uncreatedness, infinity, eternity, omnipotence of each of the persons;
(6) the begottenness of the Son from the Father alone, but not made or created;
(7) the procession of the Holy Spirit, but not creation or begottenness;
(8) the coeternality and coequality of the three persons.
Despite the claims of open theists and others, New Testament vocabulary and concepts are not grounded in a Hellenistic milieu but in an Old Testament and Hebrew environment (e.g., Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion). These doctrines of the Trinity organize the teaching and language of the New Testament in a comprehensively consistent way.
Indeed, to understand the New Testament doctrine of God in any other framework oversimplifies the biblical data, impoverishes the scriptural revelation, and leads to inadequate and heretical views of the one true and living God. While revelation supplies hints for solving philosophical difficulties, it does not provide a fully developed metaphysical system to which we can accord revelational status. Christians must therefore avoid claiming supernatural or unique authority for one or another interpretation that seems to resolve the problem of persons and essence in the Trinity. Even regenerate believers are vulnerable to false inference from revelation, especially since not all philosophical alternatives may be apparent to us. There is little doubt that the formula “one essence, three persons” creates problems, but any alternative formulation only multiplies the difficulties.
Bible College Bachelor's. As a lost DyoHypoTrin. Doesn't mean much, just like many others'. I guess you think the education of men is superior to the Spirit of God. More dialectic. Most Trin professors cluelessly spew multiple hypostases and all the rest.
As the full context of the lifted quote indicated, I asked because your facility with some of the terminology suggests a lack of maturity in the domain. One need not be a seminary graduate to come to great knowledge of theology proper, but it certainly will not hurt anyone who is so educated. Your personal disdain for these men of education who "cluelessly spew" this or that which you disagree with speaks volumes about your intellectual maturity. Beam. Eye. Remove it. Just sayin'.
The core of my position comes from the Greek text, not sources by men. That doesn't mean I haven't read them. Why overestimate yourself and underestimate others who disagree with the errors of you view and the means you've utilized to be dogmatized into it?
It has become almost a shibboleth of sorts in my experience that when I encounter someone with very peculiar views invariably the person has great disdain for standing on the shoulders of those that have come before them, self-righteously hiding behind "just me and my Bible". It is as if these persons assume no one before them was indwelt by the same illuminating Holy Spirit than they think they now possess. Such chronological snobbery is bewildering. You meet all the signs of this observation of mine. I have asked you plainly to tell me who among all the reading you claim to have done comes closes to resonating with your own views. I have not asked you who agrees with you fully, for I already know that answer. I only want to know who you hold in some modicum of respect and have learned from. Anyone?
I've searched extensively, and nobody has ever realized eternity is created. Most detractors to O/ortho doctrine just migrate to another historical camp or apostatize.
Examine yourself. One need only casually scan your missives here and elsewhere to see evidence to the contrary. No, sir, you have held yourself forth a some sort of oracle, sounding the alarm to the faithful of purported grievous error placing their mortal and eternal destinies at peril, a corrector of one-hundred percent of true Christians who vehemently disagree with your peculiar views.
God is Self-existent and Self-subsistent. God is NOT inherently constrained to eternity for His inate and intrinsic existence and subsistence. And He most certainly is NOT multiple subsistences (substances/"perons") in one substance (essence/"being"). And I'm not the one who made the hypostases into ridiculous and anthropomorphically-literal English "persons" with individuated centers of sentient consciousness. That's Triadism, and it's rampant now.
I wasn't referring to the Hypostatic Union, Cyrillian or otherwise. I don't affirm any of those heresies. I intentionally and carefully have avoided them all.
How do you think you have managed to pull this off? Your hand-waving of "two-fold, singular hypostasis" is a nice attempt to skirt heresy, but it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. You have cobbled some words together and left them with no scaffolding such that they could bear scrutiny. These slight of hand tricks are liberally seasoned in what you have written here and elsewhere. Do you have something more substantial that I could review? A pdf of a few chapters of your complete treatment of this particular issue?
Well I will ignore the obvious weakness of this operose statement, as believers are regularly met by the heretic with his "Show me where this word is used in Scripture".
Again, you assume much of me than you could not possibly know. It is another one of those odd behaviors of the peculiar I spoke about above (see shibboleth). Persons that do not even know me immediately assume I am stumbling around in the darkness about that which I speak. Odd that is.
Fine. I couldn't care less. I endure the vitriolic arrogance condescension of DyoHypoTrin ad hominem on an ad infinitum basis. I won't be stoic in compliance with your false demands of imposed and perceived reverence. Converse or don't. I don't place such inane conditions on you or your peers. I don't acquiesce to such. If sarcasm is appropriate to relieve tension, I'll utilize it. So suit yourself.
Why is it that being more irenic escapes you as a means of achieving your ends? Why do you feel this topic does not warrant a more reverent approach, especially considering the danger of creating intellectual idols of exactly who God is and then going off and worshipping them at our peril?
Yes, yes. It was all a two-thousand year conspiracy of the church and you are on the scene to sound the alarm. This mendacity of yours will be your undoing, sir.
And you're not addressing your child or pet or slave. Have your faith unto God, and do what you wish. Don't stipulate or condescend to me or anyone else with some over-mature tone of superiority. Withdraw at your own discretion. I'm not compelled by heretics' demands.
Ah, now we come to it. I am a heretic. You are not. Who knew?
And yes, I will stipulate to you for it is my time at issue here and if you genuinely want to vett your peculiar views you will want to invest a wee bit of yourself.
It's your peers you need to rebuke en masse. Grow up, yourself. Find the truth instead of error. Come to completeness and maturity in Christ, not according to man's doctrine and cultural social standards.
If my perception is correct, I'd say the thread title is really referencing Creedal Trinitarianism in contrast to the egregious epidemic of merely Conceptual Trinitarianism.
Post-Nicea, O/orthodoxy lapsed briefly into Arianism. But in the 360s AD it reverted again to Trinity; and work was resumed/continued to establish terminology that would standardize apparent equivocational usage and definitions from regional preferences and disparities of inverse application.
Just as had been the case with the variants of Sophistry and Gnosticism, etc., there was much conflict and interposition relative to hypostasis and ousia. Synonyms in many respects, they were each employed to demonstrate priority emphases by various regional Christian formulators/agologists, just as they had been by the Sophists and Gnostics.
There's an overlap in the range of meanings, so several factors had to be accounted for in standardizing definition and usage. Didymus of Alexandria is credited as being instrumental in the initial processes of standardization, but it was a collaborative effort to resolve what was essentially an issue of semantics. Over the succeding few decades, the etymological and lexical definitions were agreeably established, and were finalized in 380AD and presented/confirmed as O/orthodoxy at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381AD.
That finalized standardization is mia ousios, tres hypostases (one ousia/three hypostases). From hypostasis comes ALL "person/s" terminology in translation receptor languages. For English, it passed through Latin; both being poor receptor languages. Since in Latin the terms for essence (essentia) and substance (substancia) were already assigned; to avoid duplication, hypostasis was rendered as persona to indicate a "mask" or corporation-type representation relative to an actual "person".
In Latin, persona did NOT mean the equivalent of the English for person OR persona; for in Latin it had a range of meaning that began with the theater stage character represented by the mask that was worn to obscure the actor's identity. Much the same meaning is obvious when one compares a modern corporation to the founder/s.
But one ousia/three hypostases literally means one substance/three subsistences or one essence/three substances. Hypostasis has NO properties of inclusion relative to "personhood/ality" at all; and it has no indication of sentience in any manner, either. A hypostasis is a "what", and "person" was employed for adjectival clarification of functional relationship between multiples to illustrate God is not only a "what" but has "who-ness".
Without understanding this, a large number of modern Trinitarians are functional Triadists (three beings in/as one God) as Pseudo-Trinitarians. This is what I refer to as Conceptual Trinitarianism, and it includes those who merely assign the untranslated English definition of person/s to hypostasis/es, which infuses the connotation of sentient personhood/ality within and upon the term hypostasis/es. This subtly (and unintentionally) converts the hypostases into individuated beings rather than persons in a sense that hypostases simply can't legitimately convey. It makes God into a triplicate of man's image, and hypostases was never intended to do so; nor COULD it. There is no explicit OR implicit sense of sentient personhood in hypostasis whatsoever. To further illustrate this, in Hebrews 11:1 faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for... Faith isn't a "person" in any remote sense of the word. Faith is the underlying foundational absolute assured substantial existence and subsistence of that which is not seen.
And that's enforced by the fact that according to ALL English etymological authorities, the definitions of person and being indicate another layer of paradox. In English, though all beings don't inherently qualify to be persons; ALL persons qualify to be defined as beings. There's no valid distinction in English for person/s and being/s; and Trinity is entirely predicated upon that contrast and distinction to even exist.
In English, there is no valid "particulars of the general" that (allegedly) hypostases represents relative to ousia in Greek. If one relies upon untranslated English semantics as one being/three persons, then it's a self-refuting paradox that cannot legitimately make the necessary distinction for the existence of a Trinity.
In Greek, though there IS distinction; there aren't three hypostases in the whole of the text. The two additional hypostases must be an attempt at inference based on the perception that personal pronouns can and need only designate a delineation between multiple hypostases. BUT... Since personal pronouns are also replete throughout scritpure in reference to the (alleged) one being of Theos, then personal pronouns don't and can't distinguish between hypostases and ousia in the biblical text. Therefore they don't inherently distinguish F/S/HS as persons at all.
IOW... It was a Greek scavenger hunt for terms to retrofit a presupposed concept. This was actually part of an initial apologetical response to the Stoic and Neoplatonist Sophists, taking their own tactics of semantics and refuting the extrernal attempts to compromise the Christian faith.
But this led to the inevitable eisegesis that I've illustrated above. The Greek language itself is not inspired by God; only the employment and usage of it in regards to the actual text by the hand of the authors by the Holy Spirit.
And though inference and deduction are potentially valid hermeneutics, they yield to more explicit and direct expression where it is present in the text. Scripture not only doesn't provide three hypostases without attempts at inference and deduction; but scripture also provides something ELSE. So any validity of inference and deduction as an apophatic is superceded hermeneutically by the fact that scripture DOES make a cataphatic in regards to hypostasis relative to the Son.
In Hebrews 1:3 (the ONLY scriptural usage of hypostasis relative to God), scripture indicates the Son is the express image OF God's hypostasis, NOT an additional hypostasis (with another assigned to the HS for "equality"). The express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, by which term Jesus is referred to on limited occasion. The express image OF a hypostasis isn't and can't be an additional hypostasis.
Prospon is the outward presonal presence and facial appearance of a hypostasis. Each hypostasis has its own prosopon. The prosopon is the visible outward presence of one in the sight of another. The hypostasis is the subsistence that is personally presented by/as the prosopon. The visible outward (prosopon) of the invisible inward (hypostasis). Charakter (express image) refers to the process, not individuation into multiples.
But the general point of the OP is (likely) referring to what I'd mentioned previously on another thread. There's a difference between literal Creedal Trinitarians and casual Conceptual Trinitarians. The former (Creedal Trinitarians) have an understanding of the three hypostases as more of an individuated "whatness" recognizable as non-modal "whos". Different flames in the one fire, is the analogy. Whereas the latter (Conceptual Trinitarians) have a perception of three individual sentient entities/beings all in agreement.
Conceptual Trintarians are Pseudo-Trinitiarians as functional Triadists. But NO Trinitarians can account for there not being three hypostases in scripture, and that their hermeneutics are (at the very least) totally dependent upon attempted inference and deduction that are superceded by the very direct express of scripture itself to the contrary.
The Son is the express image OF God's hypostasis (a prosopon), NOT an additional hypostasis. And hypostasis doesn't mean "person" anyway.
Whether anyone can or will admit it, this substantially refutes the Trinity doctrine in ANY form.
From the immediate above it is clear you are not familiar with the historical treatment of the Trinity. You appear to have some superficial understanding that probably has been gleaned from discussion sites, blogs, and excerpts by others in papers, etc. I think this is the cause for your confusion. Your concern that we get things right is admirable, but your wholesale denunciation of your detractors is evidence of your lack of solid education of yourself on the topic.
I note from the above you refute the Trinity in any form. What remains then for you? Non-Trinitarianism? You own, very special, solecism? Can you state your view?
What I want to know is what the trinity will be called when the bride becomes spirit? Then there will be the Father, the Son, the bride, and the holy spirit.
I guess trintarians will become known as quaditarians.
When a person is born of the flesh the person is what? Flesh?
When a person is born of the Spirit the person is what? Spirit?
There are two types of spirit beings, there is God and there are angels. Angels are created, not born. But it has been demonstrated that God can be born. He set the example, first he was flesh and he said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and then he was born of the Spirit by a resurrection from the dead. He said that which is born of the Spirit is what? Flesh? No, that is not what he said.
The problem as I see it is that many do not believe what he said.
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
When a person is born of the flesh the person is what? Flesh?
When a person is born of the Spirit the person is what? Spirit?
There are two types of spirit beings, there is God and there are angels. Angels are created, not born. But it has been demonstrated that God can be born. He set the example, first he was flesh and he said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and then he was born of the Spirit by a resurrection from the dead. He said that which is born of the Spirit is what? Flesh? No, that is not what he said.
The problem as I see it is that many do not believe what he said.
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
I said
Separate God From Jesus and From The Holy Spirit
2 Cor 5:18-19
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
(NKJ)
John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
(NKJ)
Mark 15:34
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
(NKJ)
Matt 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
(NKJ)
Matt 3:16-17
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
(NKJ)
Mark 1:10-12
10 And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.
11 Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
12 And immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness.
(NKJ)
Luke 3:21-22
21 When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened.
22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."
(NKJ)
John 1:32-34
32 And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.
33 "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
34 "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."
(NKJ)
John 6:32-34
32 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34 Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
(NKJ)
John 6:38-39
38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
(NKJ)
Mark 8:27-30
27 Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and on the road He asked His disciples, saying to them, "Who do men say that I am?"
28 So they answered, "John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets."
29 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."
30 Then He charged them that they should tell no one about Him.
(NKJ)
Matt 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
(NKJ)
1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)
John 17:1-3
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)
John 14:24-26
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you.
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
(NKJ)
John 14:29-30
29 "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe.
30 "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
(NKJ)
John 16:7-14
7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
11 "of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.
(NKJ)
When a person is born of the flesh the person is what? Flesh?
When a person is born of the Spirit the person is what? Spirit?
There are two types of spirit beings, there is God and there are angels. Angels are created, not born. But it has been demonstrated that God can be born. He set the example, first he was flesh and he said that which is born of the flesh is flesh and then he was born of the Spirit by a resurrection from the dead. He said that which is born of the Spirit is what? Flesh? No, that is not what he said.
The problem as I see it is that many do not believe what he said.
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
Well, thanks for a flesh/spirit interlude, but I'm looking for the bride becoming or being, God. Not seeing that at all :nono:
Nor do any of us think that as you do.
Well, thanks for a flesh/spirit interlude, but I'm looking for the bride becoming or being, God. Not seeing that at all :nono:
Nor do any of us think that as you do.
That's surprising. Do you not believe humans were created in the likeness of God, male and female?
Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 1 John 3:2)
We were created to become like Jesus. Do you not believe Jesus (born of woman) is the Son of God?
God did not create humans just because he needed some toys. God created an infinite variety of life forms that can reproduce, why do you think he himself lacks the horsepower to reproduce?
God wants a family and you are welcome to be a part of it, or not. Your choice.
That's surprising. Do you not believe humans were created in the likeness of God, male and female?
Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 1 John 3:2)
Well, I have some semblance of likeness to my dog (4 limbs, two eyes, a nose, and a mouth) but that doesn't mean she's destined to become human by any stretch of imagination. By chance are you Mormon? It'd explain a bit of misconception between us. Regardless, we in no-wise think alike here.
Humanistic reasoning. It is like asking if God can make or pick up a rock He cannot pick up. God 'says' He's the only one AND that none were before or will come after. Joseph Smith was a wack-job retard. Hate to say it that way, but "Moon-unit" popped into my head the moment I read some of his gar-bage in BoM. He's a complete mental case and never understood scripture and a liar, there were never any plates. And a liar, Egyptian burial instructions do not DoC make. :nono:
Isaiah 43:10; 44:6&8; Deuteronomy 6:4 ....
Frankly, the only reason there are Mormons is not because they are so 'intelligently.' This isn't to say they are retarded, it is hard to give up what one has grown into: That's brain-washing and happens to the best of us.
We don't like admitting our religion is stupid when it 'feels' so good, we have a 'burning in our bosum' or enjoy the company of others who are duped. Anyone 'becoming' a Mormon is uncritical or brain-dead or shallow. You cannot intelligently buy-in to Mormonism.
*Doesn't matter if you are or aren't, the point is, God says things about Himself and if you or anybody, or an angel say anything else, they are wacko-retarded-missing a few.
Okay, let's see if I understand you. God is a Father, he has a begotten Son and countless adopted sons and daughters, and the Son is betrothed to a bride. What does a family look like from where you are?
How can you believe God is not a family? That is the most ungodly thing I guess I have ever heard.
When Jesus appears we will be like him. Do you not believe Jesus is God? Do you not believe he is a Son? Do you not believe he is betrothed?
Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men and He will dwell with them and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Revelation 21:2-3)
He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. (Revelation 21:7)
He shall be my son ... are sons not family? We inherit the universe with our husband and you say that is not family?
I'm not a Mormon but I have been to Salt Lake City. Are you a Jew? Jews don't believe God has a Son.
I don't understand why this is hard for you. You sound like Nicodemus.
I am familiar with the Catholic viewpoint. An unmarried priest can be a "father" but not God. And Christ became a son by magic somewhere along the way so that there can be a "trinity" whatever that is.
So you too have bought Satan's lie that people cannot die. Lots of luck proving that one.
The resurrections are one of the fundamentals of Christianity. If people didn't die there would be no point of a resurrection.
Let me see if I understand you, just because I believe God is a Father as Jesus said he is makes me a cultist? I don't get it, you don't believe in God the Father so I shouldn't either? Nah, I disagree.
I don't know anything about Mormon beliefs so was Herbert Armstrong a Mormon? I understand the Marriots are Mormon and Mitt is a Mormon. Are all Mormons bad people?
Okay, I looked up the WWCOG and it seems they changed their name a few years ago and they are an evangelical Christian denomination. Herbert Armstrong died many years ago so I don't see he has any influence on anything. I see nothing to tie this group to the Mormons.
Grace Communion International (GCI), formerly the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), is an evangelical Christian denomination based in Glendora, California, United States.
Founded in 1934 by Herbert W. Armstrong as a religious broadcasting radio ministry named Radio Church of God, the Worldwide Church of God had a significant, and often controversial, influence on 20th century religious broadcasting and publishing in the United States and Europe, especially in the field of interpreting biblical end-time prophecies. Within a few years after Armstrong's death in 1986, the succeeding church administration modified the denomination's doctrines and teachings to be compatible with mainstream evangelical Christianity, while many members and ministers left and formed other churches that conformed to many, but not all, of Armstrong's teachings. In 2009, the church adopted its current name.
The GCI is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and as of April 2009 had 42,000 members in 900 congregations in about 90 countries. (Wikipedia / Grace Communion)
In 2007 the Worldwide Church of God decided to allow women to serve as pastors and elders. This decision was reached after several years of study. Debby Bailey became the first female elder in the Worldwide Church of God in 2007. (Wikipedia)
This puts them ahead of the Catholics in terms of biblical doctrine.
Its doctrinal summary highlights mainstream Protestant beliefs such as the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that faith in Him is the only way to receive salvation, and that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God. (Wikipedia)
Although we agree on our view of the Mormon and WWCOG doctrines godrulz, can you answer me two questions without us getting into our usual Oneness/Trinity debate?
1. Do you really think the apostles, who were originally OT Jews who were well educated in the Scriptures believed that God was three as the trinitarian view holds?
2. If so, when do you believe they received the revelation? On the Day of Pentecost? Later? Before?
Just wondering...
1. Do you really think the apostles, who were originally OT Jews who were well educated in the Scriptures believed that God was three as the trinitarian view holds?
Yes.
See
Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion
And two items by Larry Hurtado:[FONT="]One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism[/FONT][FONT="] (Fortress Press, 1988; reprint T&T Clark, 2003)[/FONT] [FONT="]How on Earth Did Jesus Become God?[/FONT][FONT="] (Eerdmans, 2005).[/FONT]
This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.
I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.
Lon,
Since it is not even possible for Jesus and God to be one person, let alone the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit happens to be the means by which God accomplishes things, Gen 1:2, 1Cor 12:2-13, same spirit carries out many things.
Is the Holy Spirit one third of a trinity?? Read Acts 10:44, where the scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit FELL on all that heard the word that Peter spoke. If the Holy Spirit were a person that fell from heaven on all those people wouldn't it hurt them, and just how big is the Holy Spirit???
What about Acts 2:1-4, where the Holy Spirit came as a flame of fire, and then it says they all became FILLED with Holy Spirit. It would anger God to eat the Holy Spirit!!
God knows some things that Jesus does not know, Matt 24:36, Matt 20:23. The Father is greater than the son, John 14:28.
Jesus lives because of the Father, John 6:57, Prov 23:22.
Jesus calls God his Father and his God, over and over again, Rev 3:12=4 times, John 20:17.
Who was it that spoke from heaven to Jesus three times, Matt 3:17, Mark 9:7, John 12:28.
Jesus is the very first of all God's creations, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
It is interesting to note that the Bible says that God Jehovah is ONE GOD, Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29, 32, Gal 3:20, Zech 14:9.
