TFTn5280

TFTn5280

New member 63 From Denver, CO
Joined
Last seen
Messages
320
Reaction score
30
Points
0

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • PneumaPsucheSoma
    That Trinity thread has turned into a war-fest over the Deity of Christ with Unitarians and others. It's not much of a place to discuss the minutiae of the Trinity doctrine.

    AMR's links below may give some insight into my position, but will do little to establish the baseline of O/orthodox terminology as a standard to affirm or disaffrim to whatever degree. Regardless of my personal detraction from one primary point and the necessary subsequent subtle corrections, I always have to correct others (including AMR repeatedly) for misrepresenting the historical Trinity doctrine.

    I'm not sure how I'd proceed on the topic with that thread now clogged. I've WAY chilled out in the last year over Theology Proper debate.
    Nang
    I am sorry you see me as "puffed up." It is just that I have spent the majority of my long life time studying the Doctrines of Grace, and find great assurance and certainty in them. Many an Amyraldian, such as yourself, has failed to cause me to back down from confessing Limited Atonement.
    Nang
    Why is changing my mind so important to you? Do you need validation for your change of view?
    Nang
    Of course I am willing to submit to the Sovereign Judgment of the Lord. However, standing for the doctrine of Limited Atonement is a hill I am willing to die on, for I believe it is precious Truth. I hold to all five of the "Doctrines of Grace;" all of which constitute a most scriptural and God-honoring sytematic theology.
    PneumaPsucheSoma
    Peace. I mean you no disrespect whatsoever. You needn't interact with me if it incites or provokes you. You are my Brother in Christ, regardless.
    TFTn5280
    Yeah, really I'm not even upset about it. I just think it's a lot more serious violation to anathematise a person or to associate him with anti-christ than it is to poetically ascribe dumb assedness to a multiplicity of posters in passing. But not upset about it at all.
    Lon
    It tends to be a bit more scholastically concerned and less mudslinging. I've asked the arians to avoid that particular thread, but they can't seem to help themselves.
    TFTn5280
    Please do keep in mind that my seminary experience was twofold: first very formulaic while at Knox/Reformed, and then all over again with a Trinitarian, relational thrust included at Fuller.
    TFTn5280
    Thank you for responding. I comprehend what you are communicating, as it is the teaching I received in Seminary. I will be sending you a second email with some questions. I hope you don't mind. And anytime you have had enough, please tell me. I will not be offended.
    PneumaPsucheSoma
    I "get" why you're postulating the Holy Spirit AS the perichoretic for Father and Son. The foundational issue is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't individuated hypostases; and a hypostasis isn't a "person". (Faith is a hypostasis.) God's Logos and Pneuma are eternally ontologically co-inherent. God can't be quantified or divided into parts; and perichoresis is just super-glue for parts as quantified hypostases. All historical formulaics begin in creation after procession, and none represent God's Self-existent transcendence relative to the imminence of creation. The heavenly realm is created and cannot contain or constrain God. He inhabited it when/as He created all, including the cosmos. F/S/HS are qualitatively distinct, not quantitatively distinct.
    PneumaPsucheSoma
    My singular objection is to the universal omission of ALL formulaics relative to the creation of the heavenly realm. "Before" God spoke (and breathed) to create (and give life within creation), there was only the uncreated and Self-existent God as divine hypostasis underlying divine ousia. All historical formulaics begin post-creation and post-procession of Logos and Pneuma and attempt to represent creation and procession. There is no accounting for eternal (aidios) and everlasting (aionios) as being distinct. All else but God is created and had an inception, including the everlasting intangible heavenly realm.

    And NO; the two natures are not super-glued together hypostatically. That would be Nestorian Christology.

    My position is that Father, Logos (Son), and Holy Spirit are not quantitatively distinct as hypostases, but are the singular two-fold procession (non-Filioque) of God's Logos and Pneuma into creation when and as He spoke and breathed all into existence.
    TFTn5280
    Yes, where your departure is one ~ I look forward to your articulation of it ~ mine are two (and whatever cognitive dissonance they are producing). I would very much like to float my concept of holiness your way, of course as it relates to God and the perichoresis of the persons. My belief is that the Latin Church unto present has operated from a dysfunctional understanding of "Holy," as it relates to God in abstentia of creation. My belief in regards to perichoresis eminates from my interpretaion of the holiness of God and its participatory extension to humanity, both via the "Holy" Spirit.

    Your last line is intriguing. Do you consider the two natures of Jesus to be super-glued together in Hypostatic union?
    PneumaPsucheSoma
    I still have the same sharp criticism of modern mainstream Trinitarians, but my biggest concern is making sure the historical Trinity isn't misrepresented by its alleged advocates and adherents.

    Any departure, including yours regarding perichoresis, etc., can only pragmatically occur after knowing the precise standard from which someone is departing. I have to spend all my time on the topic instructing others on the doctrine I detract from. It's maddening, and makes me seems condescending when all I want is competent and precise representation of the Trinity instead of nebulous personal perceptions and concepts.

    No more eggs and ropes and Modalistic water/ice/steam nonsense. And no more perspectives of English persons as if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are discreet entities or beings super-glued together.
    PneumaPsucheSoma
    I think you have a competent command of the Cappadocian terms and definitions. As I've said, my primary initial concern is others' vague and varied conceptualizations of "Threeness" and the English perception of "persons/s".

    I used to be very adversarial toward "normative" Trinitarians and accommodating toward Arians, Unitarians, and Sabellians, etc.; but I've made a monumental shift to focus on the eternal and uncreated Deity of Christ.
    TFTn5280
    Friend, I am right on board with you! I'm about to get myself strung up on that thread waiting for you:up: Let's pick this up elsewhere and I'll get the heck out of Dodge! Thanks for your insight. I do look forward to learning from you. Thomas
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top