ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I did realize you were speaking to AMR here.

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).

I listened to error for 28 years and was lost. I don't need to listen to a Dyohypostatic Trinitarian ever again to know the truth.

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

That isn't even remotely what I was saying. There is Rhema and Logos in silence without outward expression. That was the point. The Rhema is the content, subject matter, or substance that is intelligently and wisely thought, reasoned, and contemplated as Logos. If there is outward expression, whether written or spoken, it is Logos. But the WHAT of the Logos is the substantial subject matter that is the Rhema.

God's literally spoke forth the hypostasis of His ousia by/through/as the Logos when/as He created BOTH realms of existence.

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.

No. Again you're trapped in your limited two-dimensional caricature to filter all else through.

There is a sense of dichotomy that the Word (logos)

Yes. The literal Logos; not a "person" of three.

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.

All this amounts to is an assertion of being able to play both sides of anything against the middle. And I'm not suggesting that you or I present a mutable Theos or Logos or Pneuma in any respect.

I do to the degree that we are trying to avoid heresy.

You do the same with me as a triadist.

You are.

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.

In contrast with the Creedal Trinity doctrine representing the singular ousia of God as having the singular sentient consciousness and volition of God; you insist each (alleged) hypostasis is/has a distinct sentient consciousness and volition.

Sentient consciousness and volition is a soul. God doesn't have three souls. It's quite simple. A personality isn't represented within the (alleged) distinct hypostases, either. That's Theotes, and it's singular. That's all in the singular ousia, not in the hypostases (for your doctrine).

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.

I've stated it simply a number of times. Distinct senticent consciousness and volition within each hypostasis is three souls, and it isn't the Creedal Trinity doctrine for that very reason.

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.

Of course. But not three hypostases. Nor three other same-semantic "somethings". An ousia, a hypostasis, and a prosopon; and all based on the "how" understanding of a transcendent God and BOTH created realms of existence with biblical EXternal processions for the Logos and the Pneuma.

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.

Ummm... You evidently don't even understand the Cyrilian Hypostatic Union and, of course, the Creedal Trinity doctrine.

The Theanthropos had a rational human soul. The mind was the human mind of that rational soul. You're at least Semi-Nestorian. The Incarnate Logos wasn't two persons in/as one person (prosopon); instead being a two-nautured person.

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.

In your doctrine, the Father isn't God. God is a "what" as an ousia that is NOT specifically the hypostasis of the Father. It's not me who isn't careful enough. And the Nicene Creed reads, "One God and Father..."

You've never answered my repeated question about the difference between the ousia of God and the hypostasis of the Father.

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.

All sons are fathered. The Son of God was not illegitimate. He was truly a (the) Son. Fathered. You have an eternally UNbegotten and UNfathered son.

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.

LOL. I'm the one presenting the truth that God is Self-existent and created eternity. I'm not the one who has dichotomies to excuse away.

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.

But you don't actually represent this, which is essentially the aspectal nature of the aorist tense. Then you should have no problem seeing that the literal Logos not having always been the Son isn't an issue in this regard. They're coterminous. In a very real sense contrasting chronological time to God's inherent Self-existence and His Logos; now that the Son is Incarnate, the Logos has always been Incarnate.

* 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!

I'm the one paying attention. I haven't transmogrified Ho Logos into Ho Huios and insisted Ho Logos is merely a title. This is nothing more than an elevated tactic of what Unitarians do to diminish the Logos to being less than Divine.

The Logos WAS WITH and WAS God. Not... The Son WAS WiTH and WAS God. It's not me who doesn't understand the language of John. Your position of the Logos being a title is similar to the Unitarians.

In the beginning, the Logos is the Logos, not the Son.

Ditto.

Ummm... I'm not the one referring to seminary education and grades, etc. I AM the one who's spent 15 years on my face before God in prayer and fasting while accessing the biblical languages to reconcile ALL other views to the central truth while retaining every sub-tenet of the O/orthodox faith relative to Theology Proper; eschewing all declared heresies rather than migrating to them. They're all subtly wrong, too.

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.

Amazing that many others can at least begin to comprehend it at some point. You're deeply steeped in dogma and can't do much but caricature it through textbook filters that enhance cognitive dissonance.

I teach multiple classes weekly to regular people, and they understand within short order and most certainly have "ah-HA" moments.

I'll simply say this: I think you logically, have problematic apprehensions.

You "simply" say it doesn't make it valid any more than your dilution of the Creedal Trinity doctrine, much less that God isn't even three hypostases.

I believe your 'ah ha' is actually wrong and that it is yet immature musings.

That's funny.

You need to be adequately corrected.

Oh good grief. Give it a rest with the puffed-up gnosis addressing epignosis and oida of the truth.

If you were an algebra student, I'd say you are a half-way or 3/4 student.

Good thing I'm not an algebra student, and good thing I know mathematics to have their foundation in the occult.

You get it up to a point, but are getting wrong answers that you 'believe' are right.

No. That's you as a Triadist and your cousins the actual DyoHypotTrins.

At this point, I believe you are wrong.

Okay. But you don't have any scriptural evidence whatsoever that God is three hypostases. It's weak attempted inference and deduction at the very best. Tell me where the three hypostases come from; and tell me why a hypostasis is a "person" since it means "to stand under;" from hupo and phistemi. It's substance/subsistence.

On that note: here is a thought that should get you beyond half or 3/4:

I'm far beyond 3/4. You're not yet TO 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.

Yeah, this is PanEntheism. God as a giant fishbowl containing creation. It's inane and unscriptural.

God can certainly "format" His ousia within the Rhema of His Logos as His hypostasis to be the foundation of existence for BOTH created realms of existence AND have everlasting presence in created eternity AND have that ontological Deity actually and literally embodied in flesh as Theanthropos.

But you think the Logos is a distinct entity as one of three gorilla-glued God-people instead of being what scripture says it is. The Logos. And the Logos became flesh. As the Son.

As Tertullian, the grandfather of the Trinity doctrine, said, "The internal Logos became the external Son." That's the pre-founder of the O/ortho doctrine that you've diluted into a multi-souled god.

And I don't have incomplete thinking. That's the two-dimensional thought of you, your Triadist peers, and actual Creedal Trinitarians. I trying to free you from the cognitive lock-down.

 

[godrulz]

Odd that I have never run across DHT until now despite over 30 years of formal theological training, endless reading of books and articles, following countless websites, authors, etc. I have read sound theology about the triune view, but never the stuff PPS is bringing up (not even on the academic radar...not likely credible, huh?).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Odd that I have never run across DHT until now despite over 30 years of formal theological training, endless reading of books and articles, following countless websites, authors, etc. I have read sound theology about the triune view, but never the stuff PPS is bringing up (not even on the academic radar...not likely credible, huh?).

Someone has to stand up to the bullies, and do so without having just migrated to one of all the other declared heresies. Nobody has ever challenged the O/ortho Trinity doctrine to this degree or from this perspective.

And you should get out more if you haven't ever heard the term Dyohypostatic.

No Triadist-but-professing-DyoHypoTrin, Dispensational, Open Theistic, Semi-Pelagian should ever speak of anyone else's credibility.

If you were any more wrong, you'd almost have to be a JW or LDS. But I still can't determine from your errors that you don't have salvific faith.

 

[godrulz]

I am not even close to the false gospels and perversions of LDS/JW. You really don't have much clue about church history, theology, history of dogma, etc.:argue:

 

[Nang]

Odd that I have never run across DHT until now despite over 30 years of formal theological training, endless reading of books and articles, following countless websites, authors, etc. I have read sound theology about the triune view, but never the stuff PPS is bringing up (not even on the academic radar...not likely credible, huh?).

Incredible, and totally outside the camp, I say.

Anyone who comes along with a new (and personal epiphany unbeknownst ever to any other man) that requires new language to convey, should be considered highly suspect, mystical, and therefore spiritually dangerous.

Nang

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am not even close to the false gospels and perversions of LDS/JW. You really don't have much clue about church history, theology, history of dogma, etc.:argue:

That's funny. Everyone around me comes directly to me for any and all minutiae of church history and dogma, etc.:argue:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Incredible, and totally outside the camp, I say.

Anyone who comes along with a new (and personal epiphany unbeknownst ever to any other man) that requires new language to convey, should be considered highly suspect, mystical, and therefore spiritually dangerous.

Nang

So much for the era leading up to the Nicene Council, then.

What's spiritually dangerous is consigning God to have His inherent existence in an everlasting metaphysical realm He created just like the physical realm.

Either God created ALL, or He isn't God AT all. Your god... isn't.

 

[Nang]

So much for the era leading up to the Nicene Council, then.

What's spiritually dangerous is consigning God to have His inherent existence in an everlasting metaphysical realm He created just like the physical realm.

Either God created ALL, or He isn't God AT all. Your god... isn't.

You must be finally wearing down, for now you are contradicting your own argument. :dead:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You must be finally wearing down, for now you are contradicting your own argument. :dead:

LOL, not in the least. It's not even possible to determine what your misunderstanding is from your brief and venomously personal posts.

 

[godrulz]

That's funny. Everyone around me comes directly to me for any and all minutiae of church history and dogma, etc.:argue:

You have your circle of gullible people, but you are not a credible, published conservative Christian scholar like F.F. Bruce, N.T. Wright, Gordon Fee, etc. Even Jim Jones and David Koresh had a small following.

 

[Nang]

LOL, not in the least. It's not even possible to determine what your misunderstanding is from your brief and venomously personal posts.

Read what you posted in the second paragraph of #1827.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Read what you posted in the second paragraph of #1827.

I did. I wrote it. You don't understand it, evidently. That's nothing new, coming from you.

What's dangerous is YOU indicating eternity isn't created and is God's "state of being".

I haven't, don't, and won't contradict myself. I've been doing this for a minute.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You have your circle of gullible people, but you are not a credible, published conservative Christian scholar like F.F. Bruce, N.T. Wright, Gordon Fee, etc. Even Jim Jones and David Koresh had a small following.

No. They've sat under sound teaching and received correction, including Pastors.

And you're a Triadist unwittingly masquerading as a DyoHypoTrintarian.

N.T. Wright? Give me a break. And please don't confuse me with you, your peers, and the actual Creedal Trinitarians who have bullied everyone to drink their kool-aid for 1700 years.

Become an actual Trinitarian and you might have some modicum of credibility yourself. I'm not concerned with the dialectic consensus of men. All I care about is the didactic truth of God's Word by His Spirit.

 

[godrulz]

I did. I wrote it. You don't understand it, evidently. That's nothing new, coming from you.

What's dangerous is YOU indicating eternity isn't created and is God's "state of being".

I haven't, don't, and won't contradict myself. I've been doing this for a minute.

Eternity is endless duration, sequence, succession, no beginning, no end. Eternity is not created (and neither is time). God is uncreated Creator. Love and time are not created 'things'.

Material creation had a beginning.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[godrulz]

No. They've sat under sound teaching and received correction, including Pastors.

And you're a Triadist unwittingly masquerading as a DyoHypoTrintarian.

N.T. Wright? Give me a break. And please don't confuse me with you, your peers, and the actual Creedal Trinitarians who have bullied everyone to drink their kool-aid for 1700 years.

Become an actual Trinitarian and you might have some modicum of credibility yourself. I'm not concerned with the dialectic consensus of men. All I care about is the didactic truth of God's Word by His Spirit.

I still don't know what a pejorative triadist is (is that even a real word?) nor do I know what a dht is nor do I know what on earth you believe is.:noid:

I actually have read very little of Wright, so cannot comment. I suspect he has more head and heart than you do in your little finger.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Eternity is endless duration, sequence, succession, no beginning, no end. Eternity is not created...

Eternity has a beginning stupid.

 

[jamie]

Eternity has a beginning stupid.

Does that mean God is not eternal? I thought Yod Hey Vav Hey established that he is.

Or do you prefer Yod Hey Waw Hey?

Eh?

 

[godrulz]

Eternity has a beginning stupid.

Eternity does not have a beginning. There are logical, philosophical issues with an infinite finite. Eternity, be definition, means there is no beginning and no end. God is eternal, uncreated. He does NOT have a beginning.

Finite, material, temporal creation has a beginning, not eternal God who inhabits eternity.

If eternity has a beginning, then God is not eternal. Eternity is also endless time/duration, not timelessness.

 

[jamie]

Eternity does not have a beginning.

Well, god, we finally agree on something. God offers us eternal life and he is the source of that life. His life has always existed and he is willing to give us a share of his eternal life. The eternal life he gives us has no beginning, it has always existed and is now available to us if we want it.

 

[Omniskeptical]

There was when there was not whens.