I don't need to read a PDF. God isn't a DyoHypostatic Trinity of multiple "persons".
Great, now shore up the "Modalist" side of what would be my rebuttal? If they are all the same being, then Modalism, is the heresy, right? What's your answer to that? Do you just want me to post my beliefs? I suggested the PDF, remember? We can talk about either your's or mine, I don't care which, but don't ask me to debate 'what you have a problem with' when you are simply throwing out terms you like. I 'can' look them up but such is tediious, especially if it isn't wanted or appreciated. Set groundwork for your contention and I'll enjoin and rejoin. Fair enough?
Alrighty. Then you should realize the interposition of hypostasis and ousia (and prosopon) at times and by region. Yet the English for "persons" is dervied exclusively from hypostasis. Scripturally, God isn't three of those. Period.
Again, I've no problem with you saying our language sucks. I'm the one who said it is indeed inadequate for the job. Rather, I agree with you we can be better if not exacting and I'm asking 1) what you suggest and 2) what the better would be but I'm unconvinced that the church hasn't derived the present terms from scripture. This is a proper expectation of exegesis.
I'm not hair-splitting. There's an exponential difference between three hypostases and one hypostasis. My view is closer to the other monohypostatic views. That's how far DyoHypos Trinity is from the truth.
hypostasis - the reality of a thing or being as it exists (substance)
hypostatized - to represent something as a reality
Within monohypostatic circles are modalist and unitarians. Such requires a very careful walk separating from heresies, which the creeds avoid.
If someone is adamant about their view, they should know the doctrine. I'm fine with those who have a very general view and don't exceed their own understanding with adamant statements. But it most often happens with those who presume they can because they ARE educated.
Again, imo, there is a huge difference between arguing about how Christ is God and denying He is God. I think most are correctable but also think bible study is 'required' (and quite a bit of it) to correct these views.
I was lost as a DyoHypo Trinitarian. It's why I'm so adamant about others being so adamant in regards to some form of Trinity doctrine.
Why? A lot of people are yet puzzled by their understanding of God's nature and being. Such comes, imho, only as we continue in scripture, so why would it have troubled you to this degree? I'm not understanding the dilemma. I've definitely been on the lesser heretical lists prior to study. I wasn't denying Christ as God but wasn't theologically mature. I've room yet for precision, to be certain and think it important, but am not sure wy such caused the duress. Can you explain that a bit? Thanks.
But it's two millennia of Trinitarian behavior that is reprehensible in that sense. O/orthodox Trinity has too many issues to be casting stones at anyone, including Arians, Unitarians, and Sabellians of various forms. Wrong is wrong, and I don't care who made the consensus decision amongst anyone from any period of time.
Arians mistake the procession as a creative act. Unitarians mistake the conception as a creative act. Sabellians mistake the singular transcendent ousia, the singular two-fold heavenly hypostasis, and the singular earthly prosopon as three "manifestations" in some manner or another.
Denying the deity of Christ, is a much larger and serious contention.
Others make similar mistakes, including the DyoHypo Trinity proponents presuming the transcendent ousia and two-fold singular hypostasis are three hypostases in one ousia with INternal processions.
Which does
not deny His deity.
The processions of the Logos and Pneuma were EXerchomai and EKporeuomai, respectively. As you should know, ex-and ek-are out of/out from. They're not internal. That's the key explicit error of the O/ortho Trinity doctrine after invoking multiple hypostases when scripture only gives us one.
"Out of" is yet stuck on 'substance.' Substance yet carries physical baggage properties. What I do know is there is equitability in Scripture where first "God" creates the world and then Paul tells us Christ does. Where the "Son" is called "Everlasting Father" and etc. We mustn't write over revelation to form an opinion that derides any form of scripture integrity. I gave warning the first couple of sentences above. We must avoid the heresies and walk the tightrope between them, but I firmly believe the triune position necessary for only this reason: to avoid the heresies. I'm not too caught up in disagreeing in-house discussion of those who are triune, but that we are avoiding those heresies that dishonor God.
All "persons" terminology is derived from hypostases (via persona at the "pit stop" in Latin). So regardless what concept or expression is used, God isn't multiple "persons". Only the Logos Incarnate as the Son is a "person" (prosopon).
Agree. We can come up with better terms but all terms we use have a propensity for supporting one or another heresy (in this case, as stated, modalism or arian). It seems to me, we need to struggling balance of terms to keep tight on the rope and stay balanced, which is also why I think it hairsplitting. I think hairsplitting good, but important to keep perspective too. I see this one as an 'in-house' triune discussion.
Why? Error is error. Scripture is scripture. Truth is truth. Dyohypostatic Trinity isn't biblical truth. Why would I shout encouragement to those who anathematize all others when they share at least the same degree of error?
I see our triune view as the least developed doctrine, and language inadequate to completely apprehend God. As such, well-meaning attempts to keep others from heresies is work done well.
Yeah, but only when facing the errors of O/ortho doctrine. It's not splitting hairs. Either God is three substances (in one essence) or God is one substance of one essence. Huge difference, especially when the former is unscriptural and leveraged to anathematize millions upon millions for 1700 years.
But saying it that way has a dangerous modal tenor and definitely would lead future generations into modalist thinking. The terms we use may not be to your exact liking (or mine) but I do think they help maintain an important scriptural and doctrinal balance. These heresies deny and cloud, and rewrite scripture. We don't see cults as truly Christian for good reason. Rewriting one portion of scripture leads readily to a different God and different Salvation rather quickly.
No. God sufficiently expressed Himself by His Logos, and we have the inspired written graphe. There is no deficiency in language. Only error.
And I beg to differ (suffice it to say). Logically, as well as I believe Biblically, you cannot have language fully disclosing Him but rather disclosing what finite (limited) amount we know, accurately. Such leaves error in 'our' hands, not that the scripture isn't sufficient. I agree it is, but we are talking about two different things: Enough vs full-disclosure. I don't believe finite capable.
I'm quite concerned about any view that anathematizes all others, and condescending so from an aloof position of error itself.
To me, it sounds like you are trying to walk the same tight rope. I think it behooves you to understand the difference between those within orthodoxy and without as one who claims to be within, and I'm using orthodoxy little-o.
You should be aware of which is which and I think you conflating the actuals backwards. Someone denying Christ is God is missing a huge chunk of scripture. Perhaps you haven't spent enough time with cults? TOL should remedy that fairly quickly (and one reason I think they are welcome here, for that purpose).
I'm concerned with the whole truth. No fudging by allowing wiggle room for DyoHypo Trins only. It's as wrong as those views you abhor (along with their adherents, apparently).
It is probably worth getting into a a discussion over but will take time to walk and wade through. You can use this thread for that but you might think about starting your own thread dedicated 'only' to that subject. It'd give people time to study, others would post informing links and information, and it'd get the single kind of attention you are trying to draw to it. I'll come read and post there if you should do so.
Sure it is. It's inferred, and it is hermeneutically inferior to the truth of God being monohypostatic. It's implicit at best, not explicit. It can't be exegeted.
Well, again, such can be hashed out here or you can start a thread just for it. Give it a bit of thought and let me know one way or the other?
Because triune is a slightly variable term. I'd prefer Merismos Monotheist or Monotarian, but nobody understands the context of those terms. The issue is.... The Holy Spirit is NOT a "person", and I don't mean that in the Binitarian sense.
Gotcha, and yeah, it is harder to define such contexts. I'd just slow down and define as you go. It is an important discussion. For right now, my disagreement with you is whether we are being eisegetically or exegetical.
It could even be that we categorize differently between exegesis and eisegesis. Such is going to make for a very long discussion
The Logos is eternal... as the Logos. The Son is co-terminous with the Logos. The internal Logos became the external Son, but not until the Incarnation. Huge difference. Monumental. The Unitarians aren't as wrong as you presume, nor are the Sabellians and the Arians or the Binitarians, etc.
Er, a total denial of deity is huge to me.
Everyone is maintaining monotheism while including the Son as the begotten of the Father of a virgin who atoned for the sin of mankind by his blood. I'd say the specifics of the ontological details give enough latitude for those above, depending on their hearts' hearing the Rhema for salvific faith beyond doctrinal formulation.
The councils weren't done in a vacuum nor were the creeds produced from a void. There were good reasons why these happened and 'fighting' was part of the problem.
And I don't mean that in ANY degree of a Universalist sense or with any compromise. The threshhold of salvation is NOT predicated upon the understanding of minutiae of doctrine. I don't automatically exclude others from the faith, so it seems I coddle other views. In reality, I'm compensating for their abysmal treatment by O/ortho Trinitarians. I've experienced it myself... in spades.
Yes, but such minutia has paramount effects, like a small stone thrown into a pool. You, yourself, are arguing over the importance of this minutia so I'm getting a mixed signal from you. My larger concern is that I don't believe you can deny the deity of Christ without missing the entire thrust of scripture promise and redemption. As I read my bible, this
is a huge huge issue.
Of course you do. And yet you can't provide multiple "persons" from the text by ANY specific terminology. You have to eisegetically infer terms and insert them into a preconceived formulation that God must be three "persons" in one "being" by some derivation. That's eisegesis.
Not true. The Son praying to the Father is exegetically sound for such a doctrinal position. The Word being both with and at the same time being God, is another. These
aren't eisegetical, but rather very clear pieces to the greater whole of who God is.
Objective truth is objective truth. Subjective truth is only objective truth to the extent that it yields to that objective truth.
The objective truth is... God is NOT three "persons" by ANY terminology in ANY language. Period.
I disagree. I believe saying a being is
both 'with' and 'is' the same being exegetically confounds your issue. Scripture uses clear (exegetical) distinction. I'm not caught up with 'substance' or 'essence' as the synonymous but you seem here, to be denying the exegetical idea. I don't believe it is foundable.
The error comes (passively and ignorantly) from not ascribing all creation to God.
I at least think you 'think' it does. Perhaps future discussion will provide the means for us to 'show' our work for comparison.
There is nothing too hard for God.
Let me put it another way: there are only so many things I can make my dog understand. The limitation isn't with me, it is with my dog.
On this note, there is only so much we can understand from God. It isn't that He is limited, it is that we are.
Nope. God hath revealed it unto to us by His Spirit and in His Word. And I'm not triune in any sense that you are.
We'll see then, over time what you are. To me, it looks like you are attempting to distance. If you aren't any of the heresies, you are triune in nearly every sense I am, you are attempting rather to be more exacting. I'm good with that if such be the case.
I can't give anyone a break who adamantly insists their meager erroneous doctrine is the absolute objective truth, can't exegete diddly to support its explicit terminology of an implicit concept that isn't in scripture, and vehemently anathematizes all others striving to understand the same apparent paradoxes while seeing the errors of the DyoHypo Trinity. Give THEM a break. They're no more wrong than you. Same glass darkly. Have mercy; obtain mercy.
You have more love and patience and your glasses seem more rosey than mine. I have genuine and foundable concerns regarding heretics. I'm not talking about someone struggling with wrong ideas. I'm talking about cults, those who are defiant, and do empathize with members within who are lied to. I don't have a lot of sympathies for TOL unitarian wanna-be's.
And He did so quite sufficiently without error or ambiguity.
Agreed. This does not mean my dog will start talking to me or always get my commands, however.
And there the vast differences begin. They begin with a complete miscomprehension of the metaphysical realm and specify INternal processions for the Logos and the Pneuma.
Er, even 'modal' carries this problem. The problem with any one view is that it can be mistakenly understood only in physical terms, and thus be wrong.
It is important, once again, to repeat the the councils met and wrote creeds to keep aloof from heresies. It is more of a doctrine of 'what you cannot believe and be true to God' than 'what we believe.'
Either is irrelevant compared to the content. It's semantics. That's why I don't mind labeling myself as Trinitarian, though I wouldn't for many years after my true salvation.
Awkward. You've been trying to tell me it "isn't" salvific. Seems that it is, no?
No. But it's at least a fairly concise and cogent respresentative snippet of history to delineate how the Trinity doctrine fluctuated and then was absolutely finalized to give us the English terms still used to this day.
God is NOT three "persons". Period. It can't be more plain from the text. There aren't three hypostases anywhere, or three anything else to concoct multiple "persons". Only the inference of self-refuting pronouns. We can discuss it more if you want. I'm not sure you do.
Such recorrections cannot work because they are entirely too modal in conveyance. I'm more concerned with what you are 'describing' than your word choice but I think perhaps conversely, you got caught up in word choice rather than what 'tri-une' is trying to convey. I think the 'description' more important but I'm a global-thinker and such is a preference of those few of us. We are more engrossed in the whole idea than the exact words you are using 'because' we know they don't always convey the right idea. Rather, we keep looking at the big picture (meh, I think the world needs us too).
