ECT Our triune God

[jamie]

Sorry, only one person.

Explain how you conclude that. Are you unitarian?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is essentially my problem, as well.

No, your essential problem is a deep-rooted and education-reinforced cognitive-dissonance-inducing indoctrination of ideology over theology.

It at least appears gimmicky to say that one has to take the long way around to get to a point. When it comes to this particular issue, he simply isn't capable or precise enough to rock any boat, despite contrawise claims.

I didn't take any indirect long way around to get to the point. I was very precise and capable in this summary:

It was God's own Logos that divided asunder His own Spirit out from His own transcendent Self (Soul) at the Divine Utterance to create both realms of existence. That was the procession (exerchomai) of the Logos (John 8:42), and the procession (ekporeuomai) of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) into eternity when/as God created it.

You've never once addressed the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma. You likely don't even know they're INternal in the DyoHypoTrin doctrine. Ex- and ek- aren't eis- or en-. They're NOT INternal (as insisted by Tertullian, and later detailed by St. Thomas Auqinas as further O/orthodoxy).

Tell me about these INternal processions. Did the Triadist professors at Multnomah even mention them? I know it's hard to know anything not taught in a class by men, but tell me about those INternal processions that are ex- and ek- the ousia of God.

The best 'conversion' scenario I see, is someone so confused that he 'has' to listen to someone else trying to pack up the pieces of the mess another is allowed to make.

Yeah, because you don't see much; including that your are a Triadist. You need to converse with AMR. He's an actual DyoHypoTrin. He can help rid you of the notion that F/S/HS all have individuated minds/wills. God's singular sentience consiousness for thought and volition is within the ousia, according to true O/orthodoxy.

I'd stop him before they all littered my floor, unless I were compelled otherwise.

Amazing how a bunch of less educated folks than you comprehend whatever I say and in short due course and completely turn their backs to a false doctrine they were taught since they were children.

To date, I am not, and wonder if my thread is better served away from this mess of 30 pages.

It's a mess alright.

I know of no pastor worth his degree, that would be caught in this muddle.

That's because you're SBC, and you think you know everything already. I wouldn't give you a nickel for most SBC Pastors, and I've worked with hundreds upon hundreds of them.

They listen because of my life and the teachings they've heard from the office/position I have by calling. You don't really understand what a Didaskalos is. The nominating committee always handles that for those they can coerce into teaching a class. But the Didasakalos was set in place behind only the Apostles and Prophets, and before miracles and all the rest.

It is a convoluted mess inside, and modalism on the outside packing, but with confused hints of 'parts' in unitarian language.

No. That's just how you have to caricature it while filtering it through your pitiful cognitive concepts of ideology and dogma over truth.

Let the buyer beware.

But you don't warn anyone about YOUR false doctrine, and were utterly taken in by it. Caveat emptor, indeed. That's what I did with the DyoHypoTrin doctrine and deconstructed it as fallacy.

We've no idea about ingredients or packaging label accuracy, at this stage in the game (about 30 pages into this thread).

You don't really want to know. You have no intention of setting aside your dogma. You're too integrated. You'd have to stand up to bullies that were previously colleagues. You likely don't have the metal for it. Most don't. They just succumb and acquiesce and adopt and assert and cajole and impugn. It's the O/orthodox way, and that's why many despise the Church. Brow-beating.

A claim that my triune position has an uncreated eternity has quickly fallen flat and shallow as pure and nothing but, assertion for me.

I can tell. You prefer an UNcreated eternity that is God. He dwells there, but you insist He couldn't create His everlasting dwelling.

Your god... isn't. He needs a realm of existence FOR His existence.

He has been completely inept and inadhesive in that seemingly blind assertion.

Nope. You just refuse to give it any more than a cursory glance in your quest to retain your error. You don't want your sacred doctrine of men to be corrected.

I think Pp needs about 3 or 4 years to get his thoughts together and to learn to be cogent.

LOL. I think you need 3 or 4 decades of debriefing and shock therapy to recognize cogent when you see it.

The Logos in John 1:1 is the Logos. The literal Logos. The Holy Spirit meant Ho Logos when John was inspired to pen Ho Logos. The inspiration could have been to pen Ho Huios, but it was to pen Ho Logos. In the beginning, Ho Logos WAS WITH and WAS God.

The Logos. Just because you have to make the Logos into the Son before the Logos is the Son, it doesn't mean I'm the one who isn't cogent. It simply means you've bought into the Philo-esque Logos adopted to compensate for the omitted creation of eternity as the heavenly realm.

Pastors at his church falling in line with him? I'm not buying it.

Who cares what you're purchasing? You bought the Triadist lie of multiple individuated sentient consciousnesses as a further perversion of the acutal Trintity doctrine. You'll buy anything if it's wrapped up by some sectarian collegian or scholar who got the same from another.

I sit down with Pastors fairly frequently. And when this topic comes up, they can't even begin to hang. They're all hopelessly indoctrinated by the same educational fallacies you have wasted time sitting under.

Put one or two of them on here to 'explain' comprehensibly in clarity. This ain't it.

They have little interest or experience on forums. I don't know if they'd even come here, and I don't blame them.

I have to sit down and teach them the historicity and detail of the DyoHypoTrin doctrine to begin. Then I can compare and correct the error for the truth. Most were Triadists like you; so I had to also cover that.

There's nothing for them to give up and everything to gain. They're still Trinitarians, but not DyoHypoTrinitarians. Every sub-tenet is still in place, and they now have the appropriate understanding that the metaphysical realm of existence was created just like the physical realm of existence.

Your confusion isn't the standard of others' cognition and revelation. So your assessment of cogent is flavored by your locked-down indoctrination into a concept of men. That's not my fault.

 

[Lon]

Lon...

You really should have a nice convo with AMR. He can explain the Creedal Trinity doctrine, which specifically indicates the ousia is the seat of God's singular consciousness and volition of mind and will. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit don't have individuated minds and wills. No multiple centers of sentient consiousness.

You're a Triadist now; but if you can at least receive that correction from AMR (who IS an actual Creedal Trinitarian), then you can go back to Multnomah and help all your professors with this truth since they're evidently Triadists, too.

I'd be more than happy to have AMR straighten me out.
As far as triune theologians, AMR is and always has been my go-to regarding finer points of triune discussion.

In the long and/or short run, I think he's reserving this for you and your need to be clear. So look to your own advice when it comes.

If you're going to be a professing Dyohypostatic Trinitarian, you really ought to be one instead of a Triadist.

Assertion that means next to nothing to me. You aren't capable of explaining it, so I very much doubt your prowess to be anywise cogent. In a nutshell, and really easy for any to follow: God is one God. He says so. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Father, are all God, one God. This is not triad and you are inept, frankly, to miss this point. I am no modalist, that's for certain.

That should be plenty cogent, even for those afflicted with extreme cognitive dissonance through too much (alleged) higher education from other indoctrinates into error.

Your 'should' and my 'should' are two different animals. As I've read your other posts on other sites, this is a huge earmark for you to pay attention to. You aren't cogent, period. You need a few years to work on it. As such, this thread and your participation is a good lesson in lacking communication skills, necessary and needed. What we have is a failure to communicate, all you. You can easily ignore me but you 'should' work on your communication skills. It is incredibly obvious, it isn't just me telling you to do so. Read again since your entrance into this thread. There are 10 different people telling you that you need to work on communication, in clarity.

Your "eternally generated Son" was never the actual Logos of God. Your God couldn't even create his own everlasting dwelling. And you currently misrepresent your own professed doctrine with a three-souled God.

No, this is you being dense. You assume quite a bit and are completely wrong. God is immutable. God also is relational to us in change. That's a dichotomy, not a contradiction! :doh:

There's more, but you would decry is as me not being cogent rather than seeing you have a horrific cognitive deficiency from your dogmatization at the hands of Triadists who don't even know their own professed historical doctrine.

I don't care what you assert. I care what you can prove or at least cogently argue. I'm no slouch and your lame accusation here gets no points. Learn to speak intelligently, with meaning. Learn to communicate with all manner of men and women in all walks of life. This ain't it.

You posted this link, which confirms my assertions in point 4 regarding the Holy Spirit.

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

And it's by far the majority modern consensus view of the Trinity. It's not even Creedal Trinity doctrine.

As I said, I believe this came from AMR. You are assuming when a triune says 'person' he/she is meaning 'a created entity.' That is patently false.

Notice it confounds the alleged "person" of the Holy Spirit as also being a "being"; and ascribing a mind and will to the Holy Spirit.

:doh: Scripture says "He" will guide you. Scripture says in the "Name" of the Father Son and Spirit" etc. etc. etc. etc.
Do you deny the Nicene Creed?

But you'll just deflect and deny and defend, all while never truly examining your false doctrine OF a false doctrine.

Such is debate. Don't like it? That's too bad, it is, what it is and for really intelligent and logical, and worthy reasons, pure nonsense assertions aside.
You've offered a few weeks now, of platitudes and assertions that mean exactly squat. Nothing. You don't explain well. You don't diagnose well. You don't debate well. You certainly don't assert well.

It's YOUR bare assertion (and all other DyoHypoTrins) that the manner in which the F/S/HS are distinct is as multiple individuated hypostases. You have no scriptural evidence whatsoever.

Bologna. Baloney. John 1:1 makes both 'with' and 'was' abundantly clear. Your mistake? You don't understand how that makes Jesus Christ "both."
I'm calling baloney because you are asserting against given revelation and ineptly asserting one over the other as if only one of these is true. It is, in my frank opinion, you who has missed this important point from John 1:1. I frankly, think you incapable of apprehending God's point, and thus see you as inept in trying to explain anything to anybody theologically.

I'm done line-iteming your assertions. Learn to think, then learn to speak.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What you don't yet comprehend is that the singular simultaneous two-fold procession of both God's Divine Logos (the literal and actual Logos of God) and God's Divine Pneuma (the literal and actual Pneuma of God) occured at the Divine Utterance of ALL creation, including BOTH realms of existence (eternity AND temporality).

This "singular two-fold" bit will need plenty of exegetical support. This is the key weakness in what holds your view together in my opinion. As stated, it does not traverse the numerous heresies denounced by Chalcedon. I know you like the phrase, but it needs a great deal of scaffolding to overcome the negatives outlined in the Chalcedonian definition:

The hypostatic union is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

Now just waving them off with assertions that you do not believe this or that is a start, but you need to show how your view, in detail, traverses these errors.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Since John 1:1-2 speaks only God becoming a name and the name being equivalent to god, I don't see how this describes a trinity doctrine.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Before responding, let me reiterate two questions/requests I made previously.

Would you define Rhema and contrast it to Logos, just for clarity? And would you clarify just exactly how the Son is the Logos? In what way is the Son the Logos of God? Was He ever the literal Logos of God? Or is it merely a title?

And is this your PDF that Lon linked, or did someone else provide it?

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

(This PDF, at point 4 for the Holy Spirit, clearly interposes the HS as both a "person" and a "being"; and further indicates the HS has a distinct mind and will as sentience consciousness and volition.)

This "singular two-fold" bit will need plenty of exegetical support.

You're not recognizing what the reference is. The Logos isn't a singular two-fold hypostasis. The Logos and the Pneuma are the singular qualitatively two-fold hypostasis. Same subsistence.

God (the Father) is an ousia. The singular hypostasis OF that ousia is the Logos and the Pneuma. This is why one needs to understand that a hypostasis is NOT a "person".

This is the key weakness in what holds your view together in my opinion. As stated, it does not traverse the numerous heresies denounced by Chalcedon.

Indeed it does. I'm not referring to the Logos as being two-fold. The Logos, as the singular hypostasis of God's ousia, became flesh in accordance with the Cyrilian formulation.

I know you like the phrase, but it needs a great deal of scaffolding to overcome the negatives outlined in the Chalcedonian definition:

Not at all. This is where the two-dimensional view of the DyoHypoTrin position has insurmountable difficulty comprehending the three-dimenstional view of the MonoHypoTrin truth. I'll summarize after the below.

The hypostatic union is not:
1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);

Correct. Christ was truly God. The Divine Logos, which WAS and WAS WITH God, become flesh. (The actual literal Logos of God, not an individuated hypostasis of three.)

2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);

Correct. There is only one ousia and one hypostasis for God; so Christ wasn't merely homoiousios. Homoousios. Period.

3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);

Correct, as I've clearly stated. No earthly glove puppets.

4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);

Ruh-roh. A "person" for you is based upon hypostasis. In scripture, God is clearly ONE hypostasis. I'm not a Dynamic Monarchian in the least; and a hypostasis is NOT a "person". The Father is a transcendent ousia. The Logos and Pneuma are a qualitatively two-fold hypostasis, processed from transcendence into immanence of eternity and temporality (with which the ousia is co-inherent in procession, though remaining also utterly and immutably transcendent).

5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);

Correct. No Modalism in any form, including modern Oneness.

6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);

Correct. No blended mutabitility, or whatever other semantics

7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);

Correct. No super-glued distinct persons in one person.

8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);

Correct. Utterly vital. A real (sinless) life was lived. Real blood was spilt. True death occurred. No holograms or illusions or projections. Flesh and blood.

9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);

Correct. No need.

10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and

Correct. No inherent divinity for man, no inherent humanity for divinity. Truly Theanthropos.

11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

Correct. No Unitarian Jesus with later "divinity onset" (at baptism or relative to crucifixion or resurrection or ascension).

Now just waving them off with assertions that you do not believe this or that is a start, but you need to show how your view, in detail, traverses these errors.

So other than point 4, I'm clear; and I'm not a Dynamic Monarchian. This assertion presumes that the ousia and hyposasis of God are in the same "plane" of existence. They're not. God created ALL existence, including eternity as the heavenly realm OF existence. And there aren't three hypostases for God TO be denied. That's the whole point.

And you're only referring to Christology anyway; thinking I was asserting the two-fold hypostasis to be the Logos alone. The singular qualitatively two-fold hypostasis is the Logos and the Pneuma.

The Father is an ousia (in utter transcendence). The Logos and Pneuma are a qualitatively two-fold hypostasis (processed from transcendence into created eternity adn temporality).

Let's try a basic outline for orientation...

God is transcendent and Self-existent. God alone is UNcreated. In His inherent Self-existence, He isn't "where" or "when" as a "what". He IS. He is I AM. Inherently, one of His many attributes OF Self-existence is eternality, without beginning or end.

Relative to God's own Self-existence, nothing else exists. Until God created, there was nothing but God. God doesn't need an "eternal state of being" to Self-exist. God doesn't need an eternity or a heaven to BE as the I AM.

So... before there was any "beginning" (which includes ALL existence of ANY kind or in either created realm), there was only God as the UNcreated and Self-existent I AM. In His inherent transcendence, God is ineffable spirit essence; effable ONLY via God's own Logos.

He's innately unobservable/unknowable/unexperiencable and unobserved/unknown/unexperienced because He alone IS, and there wasn't anything else until He created. Nothing else IS. His attributes and character all comprise His Self-existent being AS the I AM.

Eternity, which He INhabiteth (shakhan H7931), isn't part of God's Self-existence. He tents there. It's His everlasting abode. He created it when/as He "occupied" it for all everlasting. Eternity is NOT the I AM, whether inherently or by extension or inclusion.

So we have three things to consider rather than two. God's inherent transcendence of Self-existence; the created eternity of the heavenly realm; the created temporality of the earthly realm. Though most comprehend that God is transcendent to the created cosmos of the material realm of existence; nobody has truly cohesively considered that God is also transcendent to the created immaterial realm of existence.

Eternity/heaven are created, and are upheld by the Rhema of God's dunamis (Hebrews 1:3), just like temporality. Adh (H5703) is a noun. A thing/place. God didn't INhabit some part of Himself. He created eternity as the metaphysical realm of existence, just as He created temporality as the physical realm of existence.

1. God's Inherent Self-Existence
2. The Created Eternity of the Heavenly Realm
3. The Created Temporality of the Earthly Realm

In utter transcendence, God is an ousia. As an ousia, God has a Logos. A literal Logos. What the Logos wisely and intelligently ponders and contemplates through sentience of consciousness is the Rhema.

Rhema is the thing spoken about. The subject matter OF the Logos. The content. The substance.

Within God's mind was all immaterial (metaphysical) and material (physical) creation. It had no existence until it was expressed INTO existence by the Logos.

But that was only the backdrop for the true content of the Rhema. The thing God spoke ABOUT was His own Divinity. That Rhema substance OF thought and expression was the hypostasis OF His ousia. The Rhema is the substantial of God's own essential Self-existence. The substance OF His essence.

The WHAT that God spoke/breathed forth at the Divine Creative Utterance, was the entire and unabridged Divine substance OF His transcendent essence to proceed forth when/as He created all existence of eternity and temporality.

Eternity is heavenly immanence (the metaphysical immaterial realm of existence). Temporality is earthly immanence (the physical material realm of existence). God is inherently transcendent to BOTH realms of existence, and He spoke/breathed forth His Logos and His Pneuma to abide within eternity for all everlasting.

This was the exerchomai procession of the Logos, and the ekporeuomai procession of the Holy Spirit. And they were/are the qualitatively two-fold hypostasis of God's ousia, ex- (out of/from) -pressed and ex- (out of/from) -haled from transcendence into heavenly/earthly immanence of eternity/temporality.

Together, they comprise the singular hypostasis of God's ousia. The Holy Spirit as God's omnipresence in the created realms, and the Logos as God's finite point of localized presence in the created heavenly realm (and then embodied in flesh within the earthly realm). Qualitatively distinct; same hypostasis.

At the Divine Creative Utterance when God spoke, God's OWN Logos pierced to the dividing asunder of His OWN Pneuma out from His OWN transcendent Self (Psuche); and the Logos and Pneuma proceeded forth/proceedeth into eternity when/as God created it. Procession is not inception nor emanation; so though all creation came into existence at the Creative Utterance, neither the Logos nor the Pneuma are created. (And creation was instantiated into existence, so there is no emanational Divinity relative anything in creation. Only that which proceeded from Divinity is Divinity. No Pantheism, and no PanEntheism or PanenTheism.)

The transcendent ousia of God's Self (Soul) being conjoined to His Spirit, the ousia was co-inherent in the procession of the Spirit outward into eternity. Only God's own Logos could partition and distributed His own Spirit from His own Soul (Self) for procession.

In created eternity, God is an ousia and a qualitatively two-fold singular hypostasis; and a hypostasis is NOT a "person". But the eventual embodiment OF that hypostasis in flesh as a prosopon reveals the personAL nature of both the hypostasis and the ousia.

THIS is the point at which ALL historical formulations begin. They ALL perceive God to have His inherent existence in eternity as His "state of being". God IS His own state of being. He's Self-existent. He created ALL existence, including heavenly existence in the realm of eternity. Eternity had an inception and is everlasting. God had no inception. The Logos had no inception. The Pnuema had no inception. ALL else had an inception, including eternity of the heavenly realm.

Every historical God-model is compensating for this omission of a created eternity. The multiple hypostases had to be inferred and deduced and manufactured because the DyoHypoTrin ousia isn't transcendent, and there had to be a "threeness" to contrast to a "oneness" in the same realm of existence.

The DyoHypoTrin view presumes eternity is utter transcendence, and postulates the actual singular ousia and actual two-fold singular hypostasis to be three hypostases. Arians presume the same UNcreated eternity and postulate the procession of the Logos as a creative act. Unitarians presume the same UNcreated eternity and postulate the conception of the Logos as a creative act. Sabellians presume the same UNcreated eternity and postulate the DyoHypoTrin "persons" to be "manifestations", whether sequential or dynamic. Others presume other details or compounding of these details.

As for the Incarnation, the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon ("person"). And it was Mary's faith hypostasis which heard the Rhema that was God's hypostasis. By that faith, the Logos became flesh in Mary's womb when Mary's faith hypostasis heard and believed and confessed the hypostasis of God within the Rhema. Like procession, conception is not inception; so the eternal and UNcreated Logos became flesh as Theanthropos in her womb. Physically born from above by grace through faith, just as we are spiritually born from above.

This wasn't one of three hypostases as an eternal "God-person" becoming flesh; it was the Rhema substance of the Logos becoming flesh. God's literal Word became literal flesh via (Cyrilian) Hypostatic Union.

There's much more detail, and there's exegesis to accompany it; but it has to begin with some sense of recognizing the concept itself rather than a caricature to the DyoHypoTrin doctrine and an UNcreated eternity presumed to be utter transcendence. Eternity is only transcendent to temporality. God is transcendent TO both and created both.

One transcendent Self-existent God and two created realms of existence: both the metaphysical/supernatural realm of eternity, and the physical/natural realm of temporality.

God created ALL, or He isn't God AT all. Eternity is created.

 

[Lon]

Both are representions of expression. One has a limited scope to 'spoken/written' representation, the other carries the idea of existence/ what is.

Rhema - "what is spoken/said"

Logos - "what is/is expressed" John 1:1, both "was with" and "was" God.
and
Logos - "Name of God, the Son" Revelation 19:13 1 John 1:1
Paul also gives the definition of God as Logos: Colossians 1:15

At this point, you should be giving your own defintions and making your own cogent points instead of once again steering into a muddle. There is no 'ah ha' moment to be had by any of the rest of us. Pay attention to AMR's posts.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Both are representions of expression.

Sorta. Actually, both are "components" of expression. Rhema is the WHAT, while Logos is the THAT. Rhema IS; Logos DOES.

The IS (Rhema) is the thing spoken about; the content, the subject matter; the substance OF thought, reason, and expression.

The can be no Logos without Rhema. If there is nothing as substance to contemplate in thought or reason, there is nothing that can be outwardly expressed by/as the Logos. Inherent in Logos is Rhema.

One has a limited scope to 'spoken/written' representation, the other carries the idea of existence/ what is.

You're as close as any of your peers have ever come, which is why I converse with you in spite of your cognitive dissonance.

Rhema - "what is spoken/said"

Logos - "what is/is expressed" John 1:1, both "was with" and "was" God.

Getting close. So why is the Logos a "person" instead of the literal Logos?

Of course the Logos is eternally Divine. You don't have to converse with me like a Unitarian or Arian, etc.

The issue is whether the wholly Divine Logos that WAS and WAS WITH God was a "person" of three.

That's co-inherent with distinguishing the one God AS Father and an alleged one-of-three hypostasis that is the Father. What's the difference between them?

God isn't the Father. The Father is merely one of the alleged multiple hypostases.

Logos - "Name of God, the Son" Revelation 19:13 1 John 1:1

Just a title, then? Was the Son ever the literal Logos of God? If not, then in what way is the Son the Logos? This is actually much like the Unitarian argument that the Son was only the Logos in some non-literal manner.

If the Son was the literal Logos of God, how?

Paul also gives the definition of God as Logos: Colossians 1:15

No. God isn't Logos. God is God WITH a Logos. God isn't the Oneness of Consciousness of the esoteric belief systems. God HAS a Logos.

At this point, you should be giving your own defintions and making your own cogent points instead of once again steering into a muddle.

I have, though you set it aside and can't really access it. And this post was intended for AMR. I hadn't even gotten to responding to yours since you've essentially closed yourself off in conginitive dissonance from all actual discourse (which is fine, BTW).

There is no 'ah ha' moment to be had by any of the rest of us.

Unfortunately, you may be right. Indoctrination, especially of alleged higher learning institutions, is a brutal master. The resulting ideology over theology is most often nearly impenetrable. I had thought you were a rare exception, and you may still be. Not looking like it.

Pay attention to AMR's posts.

I have. At least he's an actual Creedal Trinitarian instead of a Triadist like most (including you). But even that is under scrutiny if the PDF you posted was his. He hasn't confirmed or declined yet.

If you caricature everything to your two-dimensional view of a multiple-hypostases God who couldn't even created His own everlasting dwelling, you'll never comprehend another view to even be able to adequately dismiss it or counter it.

God created ALL, or He's not God AT all. Eternity of the heavenly realm of metaphysical existence is created.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made (that wasn't an eternally-distinct God-"person" of three), and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (that wasn't an eternally-distinct God-"person" of three)."

God. His Logos. And His Pneuma. And the Logos became flesh.

The "how" for that isn't a Dyohypostatic Trinity. Maybe read the oritentation outline I posted. I doubt the exegesis will mean much framed over your preconceived concepts of dogma.

 

[Lon]

I did realize you were speaking to AMR here.

I have, though you set it aside and can't really access it. And this post was intended for AMR. I hadn't even gotten to responding to yours since you've essentially closed yourself off in conginitive dissonance from all actual discourse (which is fine, BTW).

Because you are playing obtuse, just as quickly, see * below▼ (third from bottom)
You haven't been purposeful enough and, honestly, I think you need to be listening as much or more than you are talking. You still have got a bit to learn, imho (or not-so-humble of me, as the case may be).

Sorta. Actually, both are "components" of expression. Rhema is the WHAT, while Logos is the THAT. Rhema IS; Logos DOES.

The IS (Rhema) is the thing spoken about; the content, the subject matter; the substance OF thought, reason, and expression.

The can be no Logos without Rhema. If there is nothing as substance to contemplate in thought or reason, there is nothing that can be outwardly expressed by/as the Logos. Inherent in Logos is Rhema.

Incorrect or at least not surmised well: God doesn't need to 'express' to exist.

You're as close as any of your peers have ever come, which is why I converse with you in spite of your cognitive dissonance.

:up: :sigh:

Getting close. So why is the Logos a "person" instead of the literal Logos?

John 1:14 But, such does not denote a 'change' else you too, have fallen into the same trap of God 'becoming' and thus have a God who is in one aspect or another, 'created' and temporal. There is a sense of dichotomy that the Word (logos) became flesh and dwelt among us and that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The triune view is dichotomous, not either/or and endeavors (despite protestations otherwise) to keep dichotomy givens/values of scripture, intact.

Of course the Logos is eternally Divine. You don't have to converse with me like a Unitarian or Arian, etc.

I do to the degree that we are trying to avoid heresy. You do the same with me as a triadist. It is wrong, but necessary language for bringing meaning into discussion. The only thing I want from you is not a repeated label, but 'describing language' of why you feel I am triad. I believe you 100% incorrect and laugh a little at the absurd allegation, but I'd love to see how your brain works, on paper (computer screen), to come up with that conclusion.

The issue is whether the wholly Divine Logos that WAS and WAS WITH God was a "person" of three.

In a nutshell, it is imperative that we hone in on the fact that there is separation implicitly given in scripture. Tri-(something) is essentially a scriptural given.

That's co-inherent with distinguishing the one God AS Father and an alleged one-of-three hypostasis that is the Father. What's the difference between them?

Whatever He says is different between them such as scripture gives. In the Garden of Gesthemene, "Not My will but Your's" is an essential distinction.

God isn't the Father. The Father is merely one of the alleged multiple hypostases.

Incorrect. You might as well have posted "Jesus" or "Holy Spirit" in that sentence above. It isn't careful enough, as I've been saying all along.

Just a title, then? Was the Son ever the literal Logos of God? If not, then in what way is the Son the Logos? This is actually much like the Unitarian argument that the Son was only the Logos in some non-literal manner.

It is a title and description. Similarly, you may say I'm a "father." Such gives two ideas, however, I 'became' a father. This is not true of God.
Our descriptors and titles are temporally understood. We cannot make a mistake of thinking in a 'time-line' regarding God's character and/or titles. This, essentially, is what I see your problem is: you don't embrace dichotomy as readily as scripture gives them. Both "was with" and "was" God is one of these mandatory dichotomies of scripture.

If the Son was the literal Logos of God, how?

You can ask the same thing of me. I was not always a father so when you say "Lon" always has been/is a father, this is wrong. For God, there is no wrongness of the dichotomy. We are temporal, He is not.

No. God isn't Logos. God is God WITH a Logos. God isn't the Oneness of Consciousness of the esoteric belief systems. God HAS a Logos.

* No, frankly. This is why I don't believe you understand the language of John 1:1 and need to: "was with" and "was" God. <-- Pay attention!

Unfortunately, you may be right. Indoctrination, especially of alleged higher learning institutions, is a brutal master. The resulting ideology over theology is most often nearly impenetrable. I had thought you were a rare exception, and you may still be. Not looking like it.

Ditto.

I have. At least he's an actual Creedal Trinitarian instead of a Triadist like most (including you). But even that is under scrutiny if the PDF you posted was his. He hasn't confirmed or declined yet.

If you caricature everything to your two-dimensional view of a multiple-hypostases God who couldn't even created His own everlasting dwelling, you'll never comprehend another view to even be able to adequately dismiss it or counter it.

God created ALL, or He's not God AT all. Eternity of the heavenly realm of metaphysical existence is created.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made (that wasn't an eternally-distinct God-"person" of three), and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (that wasn't an eternally-distinct God-"person" of three)."

God. His Logos. And His Pneuma. And the Logos became flesh.

The "how" for that isn't a Dyohypostatic Trinity. Maybe read the oritentation outline I posted. I doubt the exegesis will mean much framed over your preconceived concepts of dogma.

At this point, your assertion is falling on the wayside. It means absolutely nothing to me because you are incapable of coherent meaningful (two-way) conversation or adequately explaining yourself. I'll simply say this: I think you logically, have problematic apprehensions. I believe your 'ah ha' is actually wrong and that it is yet immature musings. You need to be adequately corrected. If you were an algebra student, I'd say you are a half-way or 3/4 student. You get it up to a point, but are getting wrong answers that you 'believe' are right. At this point, I believe you are wrong.

On that note: here is a thought that should get you beyond half or 3/4: What exists outside of God?

I say: Nothing. I'm going to go beyond your assertion contrawise and spell this out for you: God cannot live within a created structure as such would be logically absurd. He can dwell, in part, only. Any 'limitation' is temporal and God cannot be temporal. If you get your head around this, I think such will help you with other incomplete thinking.

 

[godrulz]

I'm curious as to how you reason this since only two persons are named.

Some verses only mention the Father. Does that mean the Son does not exist? If a verse only mentions the Son, does the Father not exist?! Some verses mention God, others Father and Lord Jesus Christ, others Father only, other are triadic (Father, Son, Holy Spirit implicit or explicit), etc.

If we look at all the verses about God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, we can only conclude that God is triune, not solitary, that Jesus is God, not a mere man, that Spirit is personal, not impersonal.

www.bible.ca/trinity

Jn. 1:1 establishes the Deity of Christ, monotheism and refutes modalism, Arianism, polytheism. We know from Jn. 14-16, etc. that the Holy Spirit is also Deity/personal (Mt. 28:18-20 is one triadic passage).

Likewise, some verses talk about the Deity of Christ, while other verses emphasize the humanity of Christ. It would be a mistake to proof text one motif and ignore the other motif. Together, we establish that Jesus is the God-Man, one person with two natures.

The Bible is not a systematic theology book nor is all truth in one verse. We formulate doctrine based on the cumulative evidence, not one proof text out of context.

Jn. 1:1 is only consistent with a triune view. This is why JWs must twist it to their own destruction and go against virtually every other translation on the planet with 'a god' vs 'God'. Even their more accurate Kingdom Interlinear gets it right from the Greek. There is no grammatical, contextual, theological basis for their perversion.

You are backing the wrong horse.

 

[godrulz]

All in favour of banning PPS for inordinately long posts contrary to forum rules?:juggle:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Explain how you conclude that. Are you unitarian?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you speak, then are your thoughts and words another person to that of yourself?

LA

 

[jamie]

Some verses only mention the Father. Does that mean the Son does not exist? If a verse only mentions the Son, does the Father not exist?! Some verses mention God, others Father and Lord Jesus Christ, others Father only, other are triadic (Father, Son, Holy Spirit implicit or explicit), etc.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that God is Spirit. And let's also say that God is holy. So we have a holy Spirit.

Let's say that Jesus was born again of the Spirit and that he is now Spirit. And let's also say that Jesus is holy.

So now we have two holy Spirit persons. Why do we need a third?

We know there is a Spirit of God and we know there is a Spirit of Christ but where does it say there is a Spirit of the Spirit?

 

[jamie]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you speak, then are your thoughts and words another person to that of yourself?

If there is you and another person that makes two.

 

[godrulz]

Let's say for the sake of discussion that God is Spirit. And let's also say that God is holy. So we have a holy Spirit.

Let's say that Jesus was born again of the Spirit and that he is now Spirit. And let's also say that Jesus is holy.

So now we have two holy Spirit persons. Why do we need a third?

We know there is a Spirit of God and we know there is a Spirit of Christ but where does it say there is a Spirit of the Spirit?

Huh? Jn. 4:24 is a metaphysical/ontological/being statement. The stuff/nature/essence/being of God is spirit (vs matter).

Father, Son, Holy Spirit all share the one spirit nature of God. Don't confuse the personal distinction of the Holy Spirit (akin to Father and Son) with the nature of each (spirit vs matter, frog, rock, dog).

Your logic is bizarre.

 

[jamie]

Huh? Jn. 4:24 is a metaphysical/ontological/being statement. The stuff/nature/essence/being of God is spirit (vs matter).

Father, Son, Holy Spirit all share the one spirit nature of God. Don't confuse the personal distinction of the Holy Spirit (akin to Father and Son) with the nature of each (spirit vs matter, frog, rock, dog).

Your logic is bizarre.

Your post makes no sense to me and is contrary to Jesus' gospel of the kingdom which includes marriage. To say we are marrying the Father is sick and perverted.

 

[godrulz]

Your post makes no sense to me and is contrary to Jesus' gospel of the kingdom which includes marriage. To say we are marrying the Father is sick and perverted.

What? Huh?!:argue::noid::jawdrop:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

If there is you and another person that makes two.

So you say when God spoke, then His words were another person.

LA

 

[jamie]

So you say when God spoke, then His words were another person.

If you speak that is one person, you. If someone else speaks that is two.

Let's substitute names in John 1:1-2.

In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word [Christ] was with God [the Most High], and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God [the Most High].

 

[godrulz]

If you speak that is one person, you. If someone else speaks that is two.

Let's substitute names in John 1:1-2.

In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word [Christ] was with God [the Most High], and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God [the Most High].

In this context, 'ho theos' (the God) refers to the Father (Jesus is also called 'ho theos' elsewhere). You failed to follow through with 1:1c (Christ was the Most High). If we say God=Father in all places we would end up with Oneness, modalism, Sabellianism. If we do the NWT/JW thing, we would have Jesus being a lesser 'a god'. If we exegete properly, we end up trinitarian:

In the beginning was the Word/Logos/Christ (imperfect tense 'was' shows His eternality...when there was a beginning, He was already existing Gen. 1:1; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1; Jn. 1:3).....

...and the Word was with God...the Word/Son/Christ was with the Father...this shows personal distinction and refutes Oneness/modalism that teaches Jesus is the person of the Father...nope.

...and the Word was God...this is anarthrous, without the article (ho/the). It is not saying Jesus is the Father (modalism error...to say that, it would read 'the God was the Word' instead of the actual 'God was the Word'). The clause is not identity (Jesus is the Father...nope), but qualitative....Jesus is God by nature/essence, like the Father is God by nature...not Jesus is the person of the Father, but of the same nature as the Father). So, Jesus is God by nature, but not Father by person (hence, trinity vs Arian or modalism). Jesus is not angel, man, rock, tree, but God/Deity. He is also personally distinct from the Father (with God). He is not one of 3 gods (LDS/Mormon tritheism).

There is only one true God by nature, but He is triune, not solitary (compound unity).

The Deity and personality of the Holy Spirit is taught elsewhere confirming the triune understanding (Jn. 1:1 affirms the Deity of Christ, but does not fully reveal the full triune understanding).