ECT Our triune God

[godrulz]

Is dyohypotrin like vaicadinnn ?

Vicodin....Dr. House.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS: AMR is correct in that most of us do not understand your ramblings, so a good teacher you are not.

It's not the teacher. It's the written format and cognitive dissonance. I've found that I have to present it in certain fashion or others immediately caricature it as something else.

That's the obstacle. Caricaturing. Everyone perceives from their database of current understanding.

Do you attend a church now that SBC

Goodness, no. I won't set foot in an SBC church.

does not live up to your standards?

Maybe I'm not understanding, but I currently attend a DyoHypoTrin fellowship. No, I don't like the Theology Proper. But several of the Pastors are abandoning the DHT view for the truth now. They've learned to trust my teaching.

Thx for trying to be responsive. It was appreciated.

I would really prefer that. Negative reps don't really help that. But I will always return a positive rep for one.

The difficulty for me is you're a functional Triadist, AND you're an Open Theist. It doesn't/won't take much for us to disagree.

Tell us how you interpret Jn. 1:1 in simple terms that would lead to your mono vs dyh view.

The Logos in John 1:1 is... the Logos, just as John states. The problem is me having to frame up God's transcendence and Cosmogony, and defining Rhema to go with Logos. Nobody knows what Rhema is, and because of that nobody knows what the Logos is.

There are two distinct yet inseparable parts of expression. Rhema is the thing spoken ABOUT. The subject matter. The content as the topic or object of thought and expression. The substance OF thought that is reasoned and expressed.

Logos is the intelligent wisely pondered and contemplated thought and reason OF that Rhema subject matter. There must be both a subject/topic and thought/reason. Without Rhema, there is no Logos.

Both Rhema and Logos occur in silence. But if and when there is outward conveyance OF thought via expression, that's Logos. The thing spoken (or written) ABOUT is Rhema. Rhema IS; Logos DOES.

The sword of the spirit is Rhema. The wielding OF that sword is Logos. For faith to come, we don't hear the Logos; we hear the Rhema. We hear the content OF what is said, not the saying of it. The speaking is only the outward conveyance OF the substance that is "realized" by the thought producing the expression.

The substance OF God's own literal Logos was the unabridged entirety of His own intelligently and wisely pondered and contemplated Divinity. The Rhema WHAT that the Logos thought and expressed was His own Divinity. The hypostases of Himself. The hypostasis of His ousia.

God "formatted" His Divinity in His own heart and mind to be spoken forth according to the unfathomable capacity of His own omnipotent omniscience. Exponentially more than any mere fiat of thought, the Rhema of God's Divinity as a hypostasis was already inwardly generated for procession that would occur concurrent with creation.

When and as God spoke and breathed forth His own Logos and His own Pneuma, all creation was instantiated (NO emanation) simultaneously with the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma.

This creation was of BOTH realms of existence. Before the Divine Utterance, there was nothing but God as a singular ousia and His internal hypostasis. There was no eternity, no heaven; no "wheres" or "whens" or "whats". There was only the Self-existent God. He alone is UNcreated.

The means was simple. God's own Logos pierced to the dividing asunder (merismos - partition for distribution) of His own Spirit out from His own transcendent Self (Soul) into eternity when/as it came into existence by God's will.

The Rhema of the Logos being the very substance of God's transcendent essence; by effluence or effusion or exudation, the procession was from God's inherent nature. So God's own singular substance was differentiated to be reality of existence for all creation. "All things upheld by the Rhema of His power...".

Hypostasis (substance) is underlying foundational absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence. It's the Rhema that is the substance; the content or subject matter than was spoken forth by the Logos. And the Logos is the qualitatively distinct portion of the two-fold singular hypostasis that was God's finite point of localized presence that was amidst the Pneuma omnipresence as the other portion of that two-fold singular hypostasis.

Since Spirit-Soul can only be partitioned and distributed by the Logos, yet remaining conjoined; as the Spirit proceedeth into eternity, the ousia was co-inherent in that procession (though remaining also in transcendence to ALL creation.

This is where ALL other God-model formulations begin, not realizing God created eternity of the heavenly realm of existence. So all are compensating for that omission in various manners.

DyoHypoTrinity sees the transcendent ousia and processed two-fold heavenly-immanent hypostasis, and postulates three hypostases via INternal procession within an ousia.

Arians/Semi-Arians postulate the procession of the Logos to be a creative or semi-creative act. Unitarians postulate the ultimate conception of the Logos from heavenly immanence into earthly immanence as a creative act. PROcession and CONception are not INcerption. There was no beginning for the Son. The eternality of the Logos is the eternality of the Son. They're coterminous.

So... The Logos in John 1:1 is... the Logos. "Before there was any beginning, the Logos was toward the God, and God (Divinity) had been the Logos." The use of pros in the accusative is one of intense inward scrutinous personal focus, which is wholly in keeping with the grammar. The Logos was indeed focused upon every nuance and minutiae of the entirety of God's Divinity. There was nothing whatsoever omitted of God's nature within the Logos.

That hypostasis of God's ousia would be conceived as a prosopon "person", distinct from God as the Father. Begotten. Eternally.

It's not just a substitue of another triplicate semantic to replace the unbiblical multiple hypostases. God is inherently a transcendent ousia. His Logos and Pneuma are a two-fold singular hypostasis in heavenly eternity. In temporality, the Logos was Incarnate as the Son.

Since God is still transcendent to ALL creation, including eternity; none of this was linear or required any sequentiality or elapsation of time. And since God is "everywhen", there isn't a "time" when the Logos wasn't the Son. Yet it still unfolded in time for and to the created angelic host and to us.

e.g. significance of imperfect 'was'; who or what the Word/Logos is; significance of with/'pros'; significance of anarthrous construction in Jn. 1:1c.

I know how I would exegete this for an Arian JW. I would you exegete it for them and for traditional trinitarians or modalists?

I've tried to expound above. Maybe it will be effective. I'm attempting to be genuinely interactive.

 

[intojoy]

Memra not logos. That's the difference.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If this is not a divisive, confusing, philosophical hobby horse, what is?

I am Open Theist, not Process Thought. I doubt you understand Open Theism.

If you used your time and energy to do sound apologetics defending and proclaiming the gospel, you might have more eternal impact. As it is, you will unlikely influence many towards truth, discipleship, evangelism.

These academic things have a place, but most people will never 'get it' (probably because it is not true).

People "get it" all the time in my live teaching. Just as they "get" all the other teaching.

You're just on lock-down with your doctrine and Open Theism.

I'm genuinely trying to be interactive. You just don't like anyone disagreeing with your erroneous views.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Memra not logos. That's the difference.

No Kabbalah for me.:wave:

 

[godrulz]

Wow...

Wow (wow backwards)?!

Clear as mud, as usual.

For the record, your long posts are probably against TOL rules and read by very few and understood by even less.

Our discussions on the trinity have no bearing on Open Theism.

Are you a Calvinist, Molinist, or Arminian (we both reject Process, the only other major option for providence)?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Wow...

Wow (wow backwards)?!

Indeed. LOL.

Clear as mud, as usual.

Two-dimensional minds have problems understanding three-dimensional thought.

It's simple. You can't fathom a God who isn't "where" and "when", but created all "where" and "when". You have to have God inside boundaries of existence that correspond to your boundaries of existence.

I suggest lots of prayer and fasting with the Word. Seriously.

For the record, your long posts are probably against TOL rules and read by very few and understood by even less.

You mentioned that once before, months ago. I was trying to frame up an answer to your Logos question.

Our discussions on the trinity have no bearing on Open Theism.

Your Open Theism doesn't allow you to see an uncontained God.

Are you a Calvinist, Molinist, or Arminian (we both reject Process, the only other major option for providence)?

None. They're a multi-chotomy that needs to be reconciled to the central truth, just like all other areas of opposing doctrine. All creation was in the heart and mind of God before He uttered it into existence.

God Monergistically fore-ordained Syngerism. He knows the end before the beginning. He doesn't have to interact in a punctiliar fashion. Nothing in creation was missing from His Logos, which was in total silence until He spoke.

 

[godrulz]

Perhaps I need to have your posts translated into Klingon or smoke pot to understand them?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...I'm a quick trigger. I've prayerfully worked on that.

Pray harder. You wandered into this site unawares of its glee at "truth-smacking", which is often nothing more than annoying someone. If you are going to call attention to yourself, you need to take the heat more wisely.

You've never been a non-DyoHypoTrin having to deal with the vast majority of your peers. It's an insurmountable task. You have no idea.

I think I can relate easily enough. It may also have escaped you that this site is populated (and owned) by many active open theists, and a large group of elements with bizarre views who have been banned or shoo'd away from other discussion sites. Within this environment there are few Calvinists, whose beliefs represent the antithesis of everything the openist asserts. I have been banned a few times here, as have some of the few other Calvinist members. As a Calvinist, not to mention conservative Presbyterian, plenty of flak comes my way directly or indirectly. You are getting off light actually. So far no one has discussed the low morality of your wife here. Mine has been so discussed. Sigh. I waded in knowing what was in the pool, so there is a limit to the excuse that because I am being treated terribly I won't get on with the agenda I have for being here.

It's not that at all. Few can divest themselves of bias, and Trinity is more of a worldview than a doctrine. Most just caricature everything to their own frames of reference and can't process anything beyond certain points.

Have you went back and looked at your content? I waded into these discussion late. By then you were well on your way to adding insult to injury with your harshness. You had made it clear trinitarians are mentally incapable of understanding you. Yet you then wonder why you are met with disdain?

Few are searching for truth, thinking they've already found it. Mystery and tenure are the excuses and evasion points for DHTs.

See, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that came out very early in your threads. You can bearly bring yourself to spell out Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "Trinitarian" becomes your personal pejorative "DHT", and so on.

But most contribute nothing whatsoever in conversations.

Your rapid dismissal of them explicitly or implicitly likely is a factor here, no?

I might reconsider, depending on how authentic your entreaty is.

Well, you should avail yourself of a thorough review of my history at TOL. I am not in the habit of claiming I will do something and then not doing that something. As above, these open theists and others in opposition to my Calvinism are regularly looking for reasons to question my character. I try not to give them too many opportunities.

How genuine is this? How open and neutral are you capable of being? I've found it to be an exercise in futility with those at your "level".

Speaking for myself, I am never neutral. How can any believer be neutral when discussing Scripture? I am an avowed presuppositionalist. I know my presuppositions and am quite able to manage them in theological endeavors. If you post your Scriptural arguments why would I or others interested not want to read and consider them?

Nobody can admit the dialectic of men isn't the didactic of God; and the formulation of Theology Proper doesn't have the same inerrancy of inspired scripture at all.

No one claims otherwise in my tradition. Our confessional basis makes this very clear.

No. I don't read many modern treatments of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. It's most often redundant or even more erroneous extrapolation than authentic Cappadocian Trinity formulation.

The two references are historical treatments. You would do well to yourself to consider them. Up to you.

Why? I'm not saying I won't; but why? There aren't three hypostases for God in scripture; and few will ever address that, regardless how I hammer it.

The why is that these are recognized discussions of the historical development of the topic. You are trying to dismantle that development and you need a contemporary perspective or two, as referents to legitimize your effort. Otherwise you are going to be perceived as some fringe element.

Again, where's the honesty and transparency? Why can't someone ONCE say, "In Hebrews 1:3, the express image OF a hypostasis seems to indicate enough distinction of reality to merit us assigning an unmentioned additional hypostasis AS that express image. And if the Son is enough of a distinct reality to warrant positing an additional hypostasis, then the Holy Spirit is, too. So we infer three hypostases."

This is the sort of assumption that you will be disabused of quickly in reviewing the works I have recommended. No one took this pathway, it is a caricature. Hypostasis was another way of saying it was "personal", as in the hypostatic union. Who denies how many times the word appears in Scripture? It is countable and factual. That is simply not the issue at hand. Your exegetical arguments will need to go beyond a word count argument.

Calvin did. He certainly could be that forthright.

Er, no, he did not in the manner as you have stated above. Your sarcasm is noted, but that is not how the whole matter played out in history.

The problem is, the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon, not another hypostasis.

Again, this locus classicus of yours needs the argumentation from Scripture.

I'll consider it. I'm not sure that's the best format.

I agree. Your exegesis would be a better place to start.

I would greatly value a synergy of mutual effort with a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian with much education and insight. You come as close as any I've met in some time, but I'm not really sure you're capable of neutrality and lack of bias.

You will not find a neutral, unbiased person on this topic. Essentials of the faith have that way with believers, no? Recognize this and work with it accordingly.

You initially thinking me to be a Pantheist and Gnostic doesn't bode well, along with your comments when I dared comment that most think hades is the lake of fire.

I have not changed my mind, but am open to doing so. You have not explained your position in detail from Scripture for me to conclude otherwise.

Okay. I doubt the unbridled mouths of your peers with be any different. It's nearly impossible to have amicable and productive conversation on a forum with DyoHypoTrins. You can't relate.

Let's not have this "my woes are bigger than your woes" contest. See earlier above. And I have been enduring here for years, you only months.

Yes, and there's a reason for that. I can't compensate for others' ideology and cognitive dissonance.

Then why increase them both with these odd grammatical tricks?

I'd love to be more amicable, just as I indicated in my old thread. It turns sour with one yammering, taunting, anathematizing DHT (actually, Triadist) that won't stop with epithet-hurling, etc.

The "ignore" feature works here. My list exceeds some sixty persons at present. Makes life quite pleasant at times herein.

I have not trouble doing it live, especially verbally and with illustrations. It's like trying to tell a two-dimensional stick man about real three-dimensional people.

A computer with a web cam is all you need to make this happen on YouTube. Does not bode well, however, for a book if it cannot be explained in text form.

Nobody understands eternity. Nobody understands Cosmogony. And no DHT can answer the hard questions about who spoke at creation.

Literally? Or more hyperbole?

See? This is provocational.

No, you misunderstand. The point was that you can rehabilitate yourself from the current view that you are quarrelsome and divisive to someone who is seriously trying to explain a point of view.

You'd dismissed me from the beginning. Has that changed? Do you take me seriously? Or is it just an over-confident ploy because you think you can easily dispell my view?

I am willing to read your arguments. If they are seriously done, I will certainly treat them as such. If they are not and/or are laced with your disdain..well...?

Last year, I spent over 4 months wading through constant ad hominem in an attempt to converse with a group of DHTs. I graciously acquiesced to the status and tenure of O/ortho Trinity, and agreed that I had the burden of proof both to deconstruct it AND present a valid exegesis for an alternative.

In the end, I stood unscathed with the DyoHypoTrin doctrine in tatters from deconstructing every apologetic presented.

So you have exegesis at the ready, then? Let's get started.

I was disallowed to utilize any apophatic statements.

Not sure I understand why via negativa was an issue, unless you are just tossing out statements with no support.

I don't know how different it would be with you. You've already skirted the issue by insisting I don't know how the formulators utilized the semantics, which is lame and incorrect.

Well, your exegesis would help. And while you decry the unwillingness of Trinitarians to admit this or that, why not admit that semantics were in fact used historically?

In the end, I don't so much care what the definition is for hypostasis in a way. There aren't three of them. It's a concept. It's utterly conceptual. That's proven merely by the simple fact that the concept was formulated with different terms for the same things.

I look forward to reviewing your exegesis that demonstrates why this is all problematic and not supportable by deduction from good and necessary consequence from Scripture.

Most read a Trinity INTO scripture in every possible passage. That doesn't make for very good neutral conversation.

I tend to find Christ on every page, so there is that.

I'd give anything to have a small group of others to help hash out many details from every possible perspective.

No one in your local church where you are teaching can do so?

I'll prayerfully consider how to proceed and present my material.

Good to read.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Perhaps I need to have your posts translated into Klingon or smoke pot to understand them?

Try both. Maybe it will rid you of Open Theism and a God that has multiple souls.

Please tell me you're not a Dispensationalist.

 

[Cross Reference]

Try both. Maybe it will rid you of Open Theism and a God that has multiple souls.

Please tell me you're not a Dispensationalist.

Funny, I don't know of a trinitarian worth his salt who believes God has multiple souls.. Where did you get that idea? What author troughs have you been feeding from? I think we deserve to know where one "hails from", don't you?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Funny, I don't know of a trinitarian worth his salt who believes God has multiple souls.. Where did you get that idea? What author troughs have you been feeding from? I think we deserve to know where one "hails from", don't you?

godrulz believes God has multiple souls, as do an overall vast majority (well over 80%) of all other professing DyoHyo Trinitarians I encounter. I used to. That's largely why I was lost, but you won't comprehend that.

My current Pastor (at a non-denom church of 3000+ in weekly attendance) and every pastoral staff member all believe that. Or at least they did until I started exposing it and teaching the truth.

All but a handful of Pastors I know or have known all believe that. The overwhelming consensus of laity believe that.

It's not intentional. It's an eventuality of how Trinity has subtly morphed because of English semantics and conceptualization.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

godrulz believes God has multiple souls, as do an overall vast majority (well over 80%) of all other professing DyoHyo Trinitarians I encounter........

Nonsense

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Nonsense

No, CC, it's correct. Nobody recognizes it or will assent to it unless it's exposed.

Do you agree with section "4" on the Holy Spirit and the sub-points beginning at "A" in this PDF outline?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17512&d=1348466480

(Lon provided it for me and affirms it. It seems to be a thorough outline of the Trinity doctrine, though obviously from a Protestant.)

 

[Cross Reference]

godrulz believes God has multiple souls, as do an overall vast majority (well over 80%) of all other professing DyoHyo Trinitarians I encounter. I used to. That's largely why I was lost, but you won't comprehend that.

My current Pastor (at a non-denom church of 3000+ in weekly attendance) and every pastoral staff member all believe that. Or at least they did until I started exposing it and teaching the truth.

All but a handful of Pastors I know or have known all believe that. The overwhelming consensus of laity believe that.

It's not intentional. It's an eventuality of how Trinity has subtly morphed because of English semantics and conceptualization.

What you aren't reading from me is why I can agree and disagree with you at the same time. I asked you before if you understood the word "submission" and to know it can only occur between equals? If I didn't, I ask you now?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What you aren't reading from me is why I can agree and disagree with you at the same time. I asked you before if you understood the word "submission" and to know it can only occur between equals? If I didn't, I ask you now?

Oh, so that's the question you were referring to. Please tell me what it has to do with this sub-topic. (I already know, but I don't want to prescribe it for you or ascribe it to you.)

Tell me about submission. (The reason it's irrelevant to me is there aren't three hypostases in one ousia. By knowing the truth, I don't have that paradox.):wave::thumb:

 

[Cross Reference]

Oh, so that's the question you were referring to. Please tell me what it has to do with this sub-topic. (I already know, but I don't want to prescribe it for you or ascribe it to you.)

Tell me about submission. (The reason it's irrelevant to me is there aren't three hypostases in one ousia. By knowing the truth, I don't have that paradox.):wave::thumb:

Does that all mean you are for it or against it?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Does that all mean you are for it or against it?

Outline and define it and I'll tell you.

 

[Cross Reference]

Outline and define it and I'll tell you.

Outline and define, what? I was trying to get across to you you weren't making any sense in your wording of things.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No, CC, it's correct. Nobody recognizes it or will assent to it unless it's exposed.

Do you think God has an actual soul?

AMR