tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6245736811559917035..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: TrinitarianismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83309022509722481352008-07-20T19:12:00.000-04:002008-07-20T19:12:00.000-04:00Lvka,The question of whether the Son and the Spiri...Lvka,<BR/><BR/>The question of whether the Son and the Spirit are autotheistic has nothing to do with a new revelation, but, instead, with the correct interpretation of Biblical revelation. <BR/><BR/>Have lost all the arguments, you current tactic is to simply throw any irrelevancy in our direction regardless of whether that’s responsive to anything we’ve posted. I’m not going to waste endless amounts of time on your diversionary tactics. Either say something relevant, or I’ll start deleting your comments.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38116453491871698302008-07-20T18:19:00.000-04:002008-07-20T18:19:00.000-04:00And YOU're the one spewing forth all this stuf...And YOU're the one spewing forth all this stuff about "additons" and "accretions" to the faith depository, huh? (I guess, with >friends< such as You, who needs enemies, right?). (And with >defenders< like You, who needs attackers, right?). :-\The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60690168149863568132008-07-20T18:17:00.000-04:002008-07-20T18:17:00.000-04:00Steve, Are You God incarnate? Have You come to set...Steve, <BR/><BR/>Are You God incarnate? Have You come to set forth a NEW revelation, perhaps a third Testament even? <BR/><I><B><BR/>Galatians 1:8 </B> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed</I>.<BR/><BR/>Have You come down from Heaven to show us new and improved additions and accretions to the once-and-for-all delivered faith of the Saints? <BR/><I><B><BR/>Jude 1:3 </B> ¶Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints</I>.<BR/><BR/>Are You so unaware that there's NO HIGHER revelation of God TO man than the revelation of God IN man?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21280998896994670262008-07-20T17:14:00.000-04:002008-07-20T17:14:00.000-04:00Lvka said:"Not quite: in case You haven't been pay...Lvka said:<BR/><BR/>"Not quite: in case You haven't been paying attention, Your view of the Trinity wasn't present until the 1500s, LONG AFTER Jesus’ trial!"<BR/><BR/>You're missing the point—as usual. Jesus' Jewish accusers at his trial regarded his divine claims as a theological innovation.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50549202203386177732008-07-20T16:34:00.000-04:002008-07-20T16:34:00.000-04:00“Your view of the Trinity wasn't present.”Sounds l...<I>“Your view of the Trinity wasn't present.”<BR/><BR/>Sounds like something the Jews said at Jesus’ trial</I>. <BR/><BR/>Not quite: in case You haven't been paying attention, Your view of the Trinity wasn't present until the 1500s, LONG AFTER Jesus’ trial!The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59612810911779548892008-07-19T10:20:00.000-04:002008-07-19T10:20:00.000-04:00JNORM888 SAID:“Our rule of faith ‘is’ thee rule of...JNORM888 SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Our rule of faith ‘is’ thee rule of faith.”<BR/><BR/>Asserting what you need to prove.<BR/><BR/>“Your rule of faith was not the rule of Faith of Christianity. It never was and it never will be.”<BR/><BR/>Our rule of faith is divine revelation, inscripturated in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and you don’t hold the copyright to Christianity.<BR/><BR/>“You all need to stop reading the Nicene creed in Church. You also need to stop ‘professing’ to follow the creed of Nicea.”<BR/><BR/>You all need to stop reading the Bible in Church. You also need to stop "professing” to follow the Bible.<BR/><BR/>“You don't follow the Ancient Faith. You are a new and foriegn set of bodies.”<BR/><BR/>Funny, that’s what the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees said about Jesus and his followers.<BR/><BR/>“What right to do have to call the Ancient heresies ‘heresy’, when you all disagree with the Orthodox body that called them ‘heresies’ in the first place?”<BR/><BR/>You need to stop thinking with your glands and use that organ between your ears. The answer is quite simple: A Protestant doesn’t call an ancient heresy heretical because the Orthodox church called it heretical. Rather, we call it heretical if it denies a fundamental tenant of Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“You don't follow Nicea and you don't follow Chalcedon.”<BR/><BR/>I didn’t do a post on Chalcedon. But to judge by Perry Robinson’s elitism, nobody can profess Chalcedon unless he’s read the latest technical monograph on Cyrillian Christology. So that disqualifies you.<BR/><BR/>“When some modern Reformed scholars assert the Asiety of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?__That's pure tri-theism!!! Plain and simple.”<BR/><BR/>And restricting aseity to the Father is pure unitarianism. Plain and simple.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the larger point is not to begin with an abstract, a priori definition of monotheism, then prune back the witness of Scripture to comply with our stipulations and specifications. Rather, we ought to begin with God’s self-revelation. <BR/><BR/>Your attitude is no different than a Jehovah’s Witness.<BR/><BR/>“The Reformed are no different from Rome when it comes to adding and taking away from the creed of Nicea.”<BR/><BR/>Since the Nicene creed is a man-made creed, there’s nothing inherently wrong with adding to it or subtracting from it.<BR/><BR/>“The reformed have no right to call ‘anyone’ heretics when they themselves depart from the ancient creeds.”<BR/><BR/>Better to depart from a creed than to depart from the Word of God.<BR/><BR/>“You say that your view of the Trinity came from scripture......well what do you think Arius stuck to? Saint Athanasius used Scripture plus everything else the Church had in her possesion.”<BR/><BR/>So you’re admitting that Arius was right? That Scripture teaches an Arian Christology? And the only way to rebut Arius is to trump Scripture with “everything else”?<BR/><BR/>Unlike you, I don’t think Scripture teaches an Arian Christology. And, unlike you, Protestant scholars have exegeted a high Christology from Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Monarchy of the Father was held in the pre-nicene world, and it was held in the Nicene and post Nicene world.”<BR/><BR/>Which is irrelevant to where the truth lies.<BR/><BR/>“The west was infected by modalism, the east kepted the Asiety of the Father view.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, the monarchy of the Father is a form of modalism. The Father is the true God, whereas the Son and the Spirit are secondary, derivative modes of divinity via the Father.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, the autotheos of each Person is the antithesis of modalism.<BR/><BR/>“Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity.”<BR/><BR/>Diotrephes “came from John” (3 Jn 9-10). The antichrists “came from John” (1 Jn 5:19). It’s quite possible to be a member of a Johannine church and also be a heretic or heresiarch. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, if you wanted to be a successful heretic, that would be very useful to put on your resume. “I attended the First Church of Ephesus!”<BR/><BR/>That’s why churches aren’t the touchstone of sound doctrine. Scripture is.<BR/><BR/>“So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.”<BR/><BR/>Non sequitur. How someone interpreted the Fourth Gospel 100 or 200 or 300 years later is hardly a failsafe.<BR/><BR/>“You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.”<BR/><BR/>Hymenaeus and Philetus came from churches planted by Apostles (a Pauline church, to be precise).<BR/><BR/>So, by your logic, my eschatology is false unless it agrees with Hymenaeus and Philetus.<BR/><BR/>“Your view is noval.”<BR/><BR/>Isn’t that what the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees said about the teaching of Christ?<BR/><BR/>Yes, I must be in a bad company.<BR/><BR/>“You follow John Calvin. Not scripture.”<BR/><BR/>You follow the Greek Fathers, not Scripture. <BR/><BR/>“You follow John Calvin, not the historic Faith.”<BR/><BR/>You follow tradition, not Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“You follow John Calvin, not the Ancient Creeds.”<BR/><BR/>You follow the Ancient Creeds, not Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“AND CALVINISTS are called CALVINISTS because they follow?”<BR/><BR/>Wrong. There is no uniform position in Calvinism on eternal generation, eternal procession, or related doctrines.<BR/><BR/>“Your view of scripture comes from Calvin & friends.”<BR/><BR/>And their view of Scripture comes from…Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”<BR/><BR/>Ergo, if Hymenaeus and Philetus were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.<BR/><BR/>“If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them.”<BR/><BR/>How would St. John correct the Nicene Fathers? Should we arrange a séance? <BR/><BR/>“The Asiety of the Father view was the basic view.”<BR/><BR/>Did I deny the aseity of the Father? No. Rather, I deny the monarchy of the Father. To affirm the aseity of the Son and the Spirit is not to deny the aseity of the Father. <BR/><BR/>“To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.”<BR/><BR/>Hymenaeus and Philetus would appreciate your criterion: “I sat at the feet of an Apostle. Therefore, my doctrine is apostolic.”<BR/><BR/>“If the Apostles didn't have that view in mind then they would of said it differently.”<BR/><BR/>The Apostles never said the Father is the fons deitas. That’s not even a Scriptural metaphor. <BR/><BR/>“So there are no ‘basic exegetical errors’ when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.”<BR/><BR/>The “people who came from St. John”? You mean, like the people in 1 Jn 5:19? Those people?<BR/><BR/>“No, the exegetical error comes from those who lived 1,200 plus years later.”<BR/><BR/>Since you’ve haven’t begun to exegete your Johannine prooftexts, you’re in no position to assign truth and error.<BR/><BR/>“They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. “<BR/><BR/>Unlike the people in 1 Jn 5:19, you mean. <BR/><BR/>“Some scholars will Admit that the Gospel of John was also influenced by Philo. I know that you guys disagree with that, but it's obvious that Saint John used Philo's work as a reference.”<BR/><BR/>“Obvious” is not an argument.<BR/><BR/>“Your view of the Trinity wasn't present.”<BR/><BR/>Sounds like something the Jews said at Jesus’ trial. <BR/><BR/>“But the our view is scriptural and Church Historic.”<BR/><BR/>You haven’t even made a gesture towards establishing your view from Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28993825939648932342008-07-18T23:53:00.000-04:002008-07-18T23:53:00.000-04:00JNORM888,All you're doing is repeating old argumen...JNORM888,<BR/><BR/>All you're doing is repeating old arguments. We've been over the argument from tradition time and again. Steve and the guys from Triablogue have done so on numerous occasions, and I have done so in a systematic fashion:<BR/><BR/>http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/common-high-church-arguments.html<BR/><BR/>Second, Kelly doesn't argue that there was development. He simply shows (as even many Eastern Orthodox have done) that when the gospel went from a predominantly Hebrew culture to a Greco-Roman one, many of the new converts (such as Justin Martyr, a Platonic philosopher) brought in their own cultural/philosophical categories. The idea of the Father being the 'fountainhead of Deity' started with Justin, and many have noted his terminology and phraseology match Philo and other Platonists. His thought ended up in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Because of this, the entire Christian Church had been infected with this popular thought. Athanasius simply took this and never thought twice that it might be wrong.<BR/><BR/>"Some scholars will Admit that the Gospel of John was also influenced by Philo. I know that you guys disagree with that, but it's obvious that Saint John used Philo's work as a reference."<BR/><BR/>John wasn't using the Logos idea from Greek thought, but instead, he used the term (knowingly) and imported Hebrew theology into it which resulted in a complete negation of the Logos idea of Stoicism.<BR/><BR/>"In scripture we see Saint Paul using greek philosophy in order to draw the pagan educated greeks."<BR/><BR/>He used their terms but never accepted their categories. Justin Martyr on the other hand accepted both.<BR/><BR/>[BTW: When are you going to make a Scriptural argument that the Son and Spirit receive their Being from the Father?]Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9483550750571402722008-07-18T23:09:00.000-04:002008-07-18T23:09:00.000-04:00One point that Pelikan makes clear that Kelly does...One point that Pelikan makes clear that Kelly doesn't is that Origen, Clemant and a couple others were in a three way fight.<BR/><BR/>They not only had to defend Christianity against the <BR/><BR/>1.) non-believing Jews, but they also had to defend it against the <BR/><BR/>2.) Christian gnostics who used plato as well as many other greek philosophers.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>3.) The educated pagan greeks, who mainly used greek philosophy.<BR/><BR/>In scripture we see Saint Paul using greek philosophy in order to draw the pagan educated greeks.<BR/><BR/>The early christians did the samething. So what they said should be looked at in this context.<BR/><BR/>But like I said before. the Asiety of the Father was obviously the view handed down from one generation to the next. Or else it wouldn't of been held in every region of the early church.<BR/><BR/>eventually the west changed to a more modalistic interpretaion. But the our view is scriptural and Church Historic.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46808595434438597712008-07-18T22:58:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:58:00.000-04:00Saint & Sinner,If the people who learned from ...Saint & Sinner,<BR/><BR/>If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.<BR/><BR/>If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them. The Asiety of the Father view was the basic view. To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.<BR/><BR/>If the Apostles didn't have that view in mind then they would of said it differently. they would of said it in a way that would suit your view. But they didn't.<BR/><BR/>So there are no "basic exegetical errors" when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.<BR/><BR/>No, the exegetical error comes from those who lived 1,200 plus years later. They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down. <BR/><BR/>NO! Calvin and friends were too bizzy trying to remold & reconstruct western christianity to the new methods of the " renaissance movement"!<BR/><BR/>They thought they could pull off the same results in christianity that was done in the natural sciences.<BR/><BR/>They were wrong. Just like the Reformed were wrong again when many of them tries to use the "Enlightenment movement" to reshape christianity.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I have J.N.D. Kelly's book. I also have Alister Mcgrath, Jaroslav Pelikan, and the Roman Catholic scholar Leo Donald Davis.....not to mention others.<BR/><BR/> They all have their pluses and minuses.<BR/><BR/>One of the downside to Kelly is that sometimes he tries to make a "development" where there is non. And it seems that he has the assumption that there was some dissconnect between the first century with the later centuries....as if there wasn't doctrines passed on from one generation to the next.<BR/><BR/>Other scholars don't have that same weakness.<BR/><BR/>Some scholars will Admit that the Gospel of John was also influenced by Philo. I know that you guys disagree with that, but it's obvious that Saint John used Philo's work as a reference.<BR/><BR/>So I disagree with Kelly in certain places.<BR/><BR/>And by the way. Origen was a christian neoplatonist. But Origen and Clemant of Alexandria should be put in a different category from the others.<BR/><BR/>Your view of the Trinity wasn't present. The Asiety of the Father view was, and it always was.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43739648898327312202008-07-18T22:33:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:33:00.000-04:00You may claim to only use scripture, but that clai...You may claim to only use scripture, but that claim is false when your interpretation goes against the Christian interpretation of those that came from the Churches planted by the Apostles.<BR/><BR/>Your view is noval, and it comes from John Calvin & Friends. <BR/><BR/>And this is why you all are rightly called "Calvinists". You follow John Calvin. Not scripture.<BR/><BR/>You follow John Calvin, not the historic Faith.<BR/><BR/>You follow John Calvin, not the Ancient Creeds.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Christians were first called that name by the people of Antioch. Why? Because they followed Christ.<BR/><BR/>In like mannor, Sabellions were called Sabellians because they followed "Sabellius".<BR/><BR/>Montanists were called Montanists because they followed?<BR/><BR/>Arians were called Arians because they followed?<BR/><BR/><BR/>AND CALVINISTS are called CALVINISTS because they follow?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>end of story. Your view of scripture comes from Calvin & friends. So stop blaming scripture for Reformed errors.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48038344557469596852008-07-18T22:31:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:31:00.000-04:00JNORM888,Why don't you actually interact with our ...JNORM888,<BR/><BR/>Why don't you actually interact with our arguments that we've presented. The early church's interpretation of the passages in John that caused them to think that the Son and the Spirit receive their Being from the Father was based off of some of the most basic exegetical errors. Quite simply, they were wrong. If you wish to defend your position, please provide a defense of the early fathers interpretation of John. <BR/><BR/>Next, we've always held that each person is a se in that they each share in the Being and attributes of the others. They cannot exist a se independently. This is not Tritheism.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, let us not forget where the idea of derivative Being came from:<BR/><BR/>“The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made’), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinction between the immanent word (logos hendiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).”<BR/>-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.96.<BR/><BR/>“[Clement of Alexandria] clearly distinguishes the Three, and the charge of modalism, based on his lack of any technical term to designate the Persons, is groundless; and if he appears to subordinate the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Son, the subordination implies no inequality of being, but is the corollary of his Platonic conception of a graded hierarchy.”<BR/>-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), pp. 127-128.<BR/><BR/>“No doubt he tries to meet the most stringent demands of monotheism by insisting tht the fulness of unoriginate Godhead is concentrated in the Father, Who alone is ‘the fountain-head of deity’… As it is formulated by Origen, however, the underlying structure of thought is unmistakably borrowed from contemporary Platonism.”<BR/>-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.131.<BR/><BR/>“In a more limited field the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the thoroughgoing subordinationism which is integral to Origen’s Trinitarian scheme. The Father, as we have seen, is alone [autotheos]; so St. John, he points out, accurately describes the Son simply as [Theos], not [ho Theos]. In relation to the God of the universe He merits a secondary degree of honour; for He is not absolute goodness and truth, but His goodness and truth are a reflection and image of the Father’s.”<BR/>-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), pp. 131-132.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87070934326247373222008-07-18T22:19:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:19:00.000-04:00In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Mon...In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Monarchy of the Father was held in the pre-nicene world, and it was held in the Nicene and post Nicene world. The west was infected by modalism, the east kepted the Asiety of the Father view.<BR/><BR/>Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters. <BR/><BR/>So don't blame the Gospel of John for your views.<BR/><BR/>Instead, blame John Calvin & friends. Your popes, when it comes to these issues.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46302706079597543852008-07-18T22:11:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:11:00.000-04:00Apart from the perfect parallelism with Eve and th...Apart from the perfect parallelism with Eve and the feminine nouns (such as Sophia, Hokma, Ruach) used in conjunction with it, the feminine role of the Holy Spirit can also be seen in the Mystery of Holy Baptism: there are three notions used interchangeably to denote this reality: (1) being born of the Holy Spirit; (2) being born anew; and (3) being born from above. (Also the Spirit descending on Christ at His Holy Baptism, for further support of #1 above).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52748406055904005692008-07-18T22:10:00.000-04:002008-07-18T22:10:00.000-04:00Our rule of faith "is" thee rule of faith. Your ru...Our rule of faith "is" thee rule of faith. <BR/><BR/>Your rule of faith was not the rule of Faith of Christianity. It never was and it never will be.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You all need to stop reading the Nicene creed in Church. You also need to stop "professing" to follow the creed of Nicea. <BR/><BR/>You don't follow the Ancient Faith. You are a new and foriegn set of bodies.<BR/><BR/>What right to do have to call the Ancient heresies "heresy", when you all disagree with the Orthodox body that called them "heresies" in the first place?<BR/><BR/>You don't follow Nicea and you don't follow Chalcedon. And the one who said that the otherside of the Isle called Calvin's triniterianism "orthodox", doesn't know what he's talking about. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Who said Rome's modalistic leanings were "sound" to begin with? Also, how do you know that Rome even knew that Calvin believed in the Asiety of the Son?<BR/><BR/>And what will Rome say now, when some modern Reformed scholars assert the Asiety of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?<BR/><BR/>That's pure tri-theism!!! Plain and simple. The Reformed are no different from Rome when it comes to adding and taking away from the creed of Nicea. Yet, you go to her for confirmation on Calvin's triniterianism. If you depart from Nicea your triniterianism can't be "orthodox". It can't be sound....And if Rome agrees with Calvin's Asiety of the Son view then she's wrong too! It's not like it's the first time she has been wrong about her additions to the creed.<BR/><BR/>Don't pretend to hold the Nicene Faith when you don't.<BR/><BR/>Don't pretend to hold the Chalcedonian Faith when you don't.<BR/><BR/>The reformed have no right to call "anyone" heretics when they themselves depart from the ancient creeds.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You say that your view of the Trinity came from scripture......well what do you think Arius stuck to? Saint Athanasius used Scripture plus everything else the Church had in her possesion. <BR/><BR/>There is nothing new under the sun.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>JNORM888Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34222137279601589962008-07-18T21:50:00.000-04:002008-07-18T21:50:00.000-04:00The Spirit isn't born from the father, nor does th...The Spirit isn't born from the father, nor does the Father begat the Spirit. (I've yet to come across some Scripture backing up such obviously erroneous statement)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29079356339700559562008-07-18T21:35:00.000-04:002008-07-18T21:35:00.000-04:00Guys, a stone just flew through my bedroom window ...Guys, <BR/><BR/>a stone just flew through my bedroom window some 2 hrs ago, at 2 AM this morning ... something that never ever happened before, and I live here for 25 yrs. Guess I must've attracted some curses on me from your side, or something :) <BR/><BR/>OK, now this being said: <BR/><I><B><BR/>Exodus 28:3 </B> And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with <B>the spirit of wisdom</B>, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.<B><BR/>Deuteronomy 34:9 </B> ¶And Joshua the son of Nun was full of <B>the spirit of wisdom</B>; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.<B><BR/>Isaiah 11:2 </B> And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, <B>the spirit of wisdom</B> and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;<B><BR/>Ephesians 1:17 </B> That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you <B>the spirit of wisdom</B> and revelation in the knowledge of him:</I><BR/><BR/>Scripture rightly interpreted within the light of Holy Tradition <B>is</B> the rule of faith of the Orthodox Church. Always has been and always will be. <BR/><BR/>God is Life, and when man turns away from Him, he inevitably enters the realm of death. The Fathers say: God created us without our will, but does not redeem us without our will. The same can be said about Lazarus: we will all resurrect one day, but whether this resurrection will be unto life eternal, or unto death eternal, it's up to us. <BR/><BR/>God has 1,000 attributes, but only two of them are used as a definition of Him: one in the Old Testament, where it says: I AM Who I AM (that is, God is Life); and "God is Love". It's not in vain that this has been done so. <BR/><I><BR/>Disputations and Councils are not our rule of faith. So, once again, you beg the question. Why should we accept your rule of faith</I>?<BR/><BR/>You said that the 6th Council never condemned Monergism; and yet we've clearly shown that it did; we're not asking You to accept the 6th Council and become Orthodox, but we are asking You to see that the 6th Synod did condemn what it clearly condemned, and not to deny the obvious, since there's really no point in doing that. <BR/><BR/>I'm OK with Adam and Eve's con-substantiality being a sign of the Father and the Spirit's con-substantiality (the Fathers used this very same argument against the Arians, who said that even if the Son were to be of the same essence, the Spirit couldn't have been, because He was not born from the Father, and as such being homoousios with Him was not a possibility). <BR/><BR/>I said that "<I>Wisdom, or Sophia, is *ALSO* a term for the Holy Spirit</I>"; <B>not</B> that it was applied <I>solely</I> to Him. <BR/><BR/>And yes, the fact that the Ruach or Hokma or Sophia are feminine nouns, and the Spirit's action in the first verses of Genesis has been constantly interpeted as that of a mother-hen hatching its eggs, (and its hovering over the Virgin enters into the same feminine attributes), is very neat to know when You're nagged by some rather tediously stupid "atheist apologets" that want to say that the episode of Christ's Virgin birth is "adopted" from pagan myths of gods fathering demigods. <BR/><BR/>The fact that Adam begat sons "in his image", however, (which is *also* said only *after* the fall) does not bother You, not one bit. (Just like he also was God's son [Luke] made in His Image [Genesis])<BR/><BR/>That would be all for now.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23611461741761378262008-07-18T20:45:00.000-04:002008-07-18T20:45:00.000-04:00If You're saying that a Son can also be a Mother, ...<I>If You're saying that a Son can also be a Mother, then You *ARE* being modalistic. </I><BR/><BR/>1. Only if the Son and the Father are the same thing, and only if Adam and Eve are the same person.<BR/><BR/>Can you quote me saying that? No, quite the contrary. <BR/><BR/>And I never said "the Son can be a Mother." Rather, I stated, within the intertrintarian relation:<BR/><BR/>The Father generates the Son<BR/><BR/>*just as*<BR/><BR/>Woman was taken from Man<BR/><BR/>The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son<BR/><BR/>*just as*<BR/><BR/>A child proceeds from its parents<BR/><BR/>That's called an *analogy.*<BR/><BR/>You can't seem to wrap it around your tiny brain that the reason the filiation applies to the Son, is not because of the title "Son," but because, according to your own Trinitarianism, the generation of the Son. The Son is the image of the Father, generated eternally by Him. His essence is derived from the Father...and Woman's essence is derived from man, insofar as God, in the narrative, took from Man and made Woman from him. <BR/><BR/>You're too busy acting like a demagogue here to ask questions about the analogy. No, you come here as if you are judge, jury, and executioner and attack it. Consider this your first warning - improve your behavior, or be banned. It's simple. You don't get to play demagogue here - not now, not ever.<BR/><BR/><I>In Proverbs, He is depicted as Wisdom, a woman crying out in the streets, so, yes, He is depicted in feminine terms.<BR/><BR/>That would be the Holy Spirit. </I><BR/><BR/>You might want to exegete the text. It's quite common to exegete Wisdom shouting in the streets in Proverbs 8 as a typological foreshadowing of Christ, not the Spirit.<BR/><BR/>http://www.reformation21.org/articles/does-proverbs-speak-of-jesus.php<BR/><BR/>The only point of controversy here is 8:22, but if you see that as a metaphor foreshadowing the truth of the generation of the Son, that's not a problem.<BR/><BR/>By the way, this is hardly a uniquely Protestant viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>And Christ is called the Wisdom of God by none other than Paul, but, hey if you want to make the facile argument that because "Sophia" can be used of the Spirit and that Proverbs is, consequently, talking about the Spirit, by all means do so. It only advertises your ignorance of Scripture for the world to see.<BR/><BR/>Of course, what you neglected to mention is the it's the Wisdom of Solomon that connects the Holy Spirit to Sophia. <BR/>So, now, once again, you're begging the question for Orthodoxy - yet again. But then, if your belief in the inspiration of Scripture extends to pious frauds, by all means, make that argument.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And in the Apocalypse: Christ as a BrideGroom. :-\ </I><BR/><BR/>Irrelevant, for this relates to the relation between Christ and the Church, not the Son and the Father.<BR/><BR/><I>You have #2 and #3 mixed up. (And because we don't play with the notion of Personhood, since we're not modalistic).</I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad you brought this up.<BR/><BR/>So, now you are equating the Spirit with Eve. That means you, sir, think the Spirit is a Mother. Where is the supporting argument? All the objections you've raised to me, you now need to answer.<BR/><BR/>Calling on her name, Eve, won't help you, for <I>in the creation narrative </I> she was named "woman," not Eve. She was named Eve as a consequence of <I>the Fall</I>. So, your argument falls apart at a critical point of comparison, for the life she gives is related to fallen man - but we're not discussing redemption, we're discussing the inter-Trinitarian relationship. Since sin does not enter into that, and since the relation Eve would embody would related to redemptive history, not the interTrinitarian relation or creation qua creation, your argument fails, as most of them do. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to call on the Spirit's overshadowing of Mary in the virginal conception, we can do that, but that applies to the Incarnation - not the interTrinitarian relation. So, if you make particular move, you wind up affirming adoptionism.<BR/><BR/><I>But the Spirit is NOT in the Image of God (Scripture nowhere says so), nor is Eve in the likeness of Adam (same reason).</I><BR/><BR/>This won't help you either.<BR/><BR/>1. You're now appealing to Scripture, but Scripture is not your rule of faith,.<BR/>2. You're now trying to use the GHM, but the GHM is not your method of exegesis.<BR/><BR/>So, now you're using a double standard. I'll keep this filed away for future reference.<BR/><BR/>3. I'm drawing an *analogy.*<BR/><BR/>The Spirit is not in the image of God? Really? So the Spirit and the other Two don't possess the same essence?<BR/><BR/>Woman is not in the image of man? Really? So Woman was not derived from Man? Is that what the text indicates?<BR/><BR/>Here's the sequence of events in her creation:<BR/><BR/>1. God created Adam in His image. <BR/>2. God took a rib from Adam and made a female. <BR/>3. Adam (Literally "man" in Hebrew) called her "Woman."<BR/>She was *not* named "Eve" at that point. <BR/>4. The fact that her name is "Woman" is indicative that her essence was derived from "Man." She is called, "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh." She is called "woman" because she was taken out of man. She is, literally, a female man, as vira is to vir in Latin.<BR/><BR/><I>Our God is the God of Love (that's the NT definition of Him),</I><BR/><BR/>God's love is not His only attribute. <BR/><BR/><I>Now, Monergism or the belief in "Irresistable Grace" is such a form of spiritual rape (given Your own Biblical Christ-as-Bridegroom and Church-AS-wife symbolism).</I> A straw man. God raises the dead to life and they willingly believe. Did Jesus rape Lazarus when he was raised?<BR/><BR/><I>Were there to be such a thing as "Irresistable Grace", the Scriptures wouldn't speak of such a concept as that of a sin against the Holy Ghost in the first place: which means just that: to wilfully opose God's Holy Grace, given to us by His Holy Spirit. :-(</I><BR/><BR/>IG only refers to regeneration. Calvinism affirms that people can apostatize. And IG doesn't mean people can't or don't resist grace.<BR/><BR/><I>Augustinian Monergism is obviously heretical, being directly opposed to its evil twin brother, Pellagianism.</I><BR/><BR/>Another facile argument. Where, in Scripture, is Libertarian Free Will taught. We'll wait for you to figure it out, to date not a single Libertarian here has been able to answer this question, but, hey, maybe you with your obviously superior mental acument will be able to go where none of them have dared to tread.<BR/><BR/><I>but I was flaberghasted by his attempt to criss-cross the last two and equating Son with woman and Spirit with sonship</I><BR/><BR/>I did not equate the Spirit with Sonship. Go back, Lvka, and read what I wrote. I drew an analogy between the Spirit and a *child* not the Spirit and a *son.* The fact that you constantly misrepresent the discussion is a sign of your weak hand.<BR/><BR/><I>All one has to do is simply read the partisan debates amongst the interlocutors of the controversey. The most notable one that will highlight that you are clearly mistaken here is the Disputation with Pyrrhus by St. Maximus the Confessor. Perhaps you haven't read the primary sources? Anyways, the decree can't be divorced from the context of the debate and the decree condemens that their be one will and *one energy* in Christ. You may want to realize that Byzantine Monergism also understood that Christ appropriated a human energy and that it was determined solely by the divine energy of the Word to render one and only one outcome, predestination style. It was this understanding that was refuted in the Disputation.</I><BR/><BR/>1. A classic example of begging the question. Punting there won't do you any good, Perry, for now you're begging the question for Orthodoxy by discussing the divine energies, et.al. Do you have an argument that's not question-begging? I have yet to see it. <BR/><BR/>2. Where's the exegetical argument against monergism? We'll wait for you to provide it and fail - yet again.<BR/><BR/>3. I am aware of this argument from you, but, once again, it doesn't do you any good, for you, as usual assume, without benefit of argument, that Christ had libertarian freedom in the process. Where's the supporting argument for Libertarian action theory? We've seen you try that move and fail, but perhaps you'll try and mount it again.<BR/><BR/>4. Disputations and Councils are not our rule of faith. So, once again, you beg the question. Why should we accept your rule of faith?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83103546491135075682008-07-18T15:54:00.000-04:002008-07-18T15:54:00.000-04:00I am aware of the family being one of the images o...I am aware of the family being one of the images of God in man; but I was flaberghasted by his attempt to criss-cross the last two and equating Son with woman and Spirit with sonship. (In my analogy, there are no dissimilarities between these two).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65320007570451263502008-07-18T12:25:00.000-04:002008-07-18T12:25:00.000-04:00LVKA,At the risk of stating the obvious, I believe...LVKA,<BR/><BR/>At the risk of stating the obvious, I believe that Gene is merely arguing for an *analogy* between the Trinity and the nuclear family, and also arguing that the Trinity is the exemplar of the nuclear family. But in any analogy there are disanalogies. That’s implicit in his comparison. To point out dissimilarities between the Trinity and the nuclear family is beside the point since Gene is not argument from identity, but analogy.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46444556797977552592008-07-18T09:58:00.000-04:002008-07-18T09:58:00.000-04:00"No, it condemned monotheletism. The assertion tha..."No, it condemned monotheletism. The assertion that it condemned monergism is a conclusion that your side of the aisle draws, generally without benefit of argument. That's what you get for getting your arguments from Perry. But, hey, if you think you can sustain that argument, by all means do try."<BR/><BR/>All one has to do is simply read the partisan debates amongst the interlocutors of the controversey. The most notable one that will highlight that you are clearly mistaken here is the Disputation with Pyrrhus by St. Maximus the Confessor. Perhaps you haven't read the primary sources? Anyways, the decree can't be divorced from the context of the debate and the decree condemens that their be one will and *one energy* in Christ. You may want to realize that Byzantine Monergism also understood that Christ appropriated a human energy and that it was determined solely by the divine energy of the Word to render one and only one outcome, predestination style. It was this understanding that was refuted in the Disputation.<BR/><BR/>PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23498601349164565742008-07-18T09:53:00.000-04:002008-07-18T09:53:00.000-04:00Swamper, There's nothing wrong with accusing Augus...Swamper, <BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with accusing Augustine of heresies in certain points in which he blatantly commited them. It has been already done more than one-and-a-half millennia ago, by the monastic followers of St. John Chrisostom, the so-called semi-Pelagian Fathers (i.e., the <A HREF="http://mystificator.blogspot.com/2007/12/proto-romanian-saints-scythian-monks.html" REL="nofollow">Scythian monks</A>). As a Romanian, I take great joy in them. :-) <BR/><BR/>Origen and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are also among my favorites (I have this thing for trouble-makers, You see): the first was excommunicated centuries after his death by the 5th Synod; the second left the Church of his own accord and good-will to become a Montanist heretic; and the third's name disappeared from calendars and synaxarions some one millennium after his death, because of certain problematic passages discovered in writings that possibly weren't even his. <BR/><BR/>I tried to keep a balanced view of St. Augustine, until I saw that his filioque could NOT be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, no matter how hard someone tries to excuse him. But what finally blew my socks off was when I read with my own eyes the Sabellian absurdities that he wrote concerning the Trinity ... (which absurdities would even be spotted by our NeoProtestant friend <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/06/bewitched.html" REL="nofollow">Allan</A> here ... which is simply stupid, because the opinions of Protestants are in Orthodoxy 1,000 miles below what we expect from a Church Father ... especially a great one, like St. Augustine): the man <I>actually wrote</I> that:<BR/><BR/>-- God is Spirit, so the Trinity equals the Holy Spirit;<BR/>-- the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, so the Son might also be called Father;<BR/>-- and since he (the Spirit) does that, we might also be calling him Son;<BR/>-- etc.<BR/><BR/>I mean, when I read those, I even forgot about his other mistakes (the usual ones concerning the Filioque or Grace and free will). <BR/><BR/>I'm *NOT* saying that "everything" that he wrote was that bad: his books on his own life and repentance are very good, and it's laudatory that he was the first one to write entire books concerning retractions of previous mistakes of which he himself became in the mean time aware, but, quite frankly, I would NOT recommend any of the writings of these four great men to anyone converting to our faith, to catechumens, even to those that are simple-minded faithful believers. I wouldn't give them to my (inextant) children either. It's all just a sane and healthy safety-measure, really. :-\The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52502900189387407062008-07-18T02:11:00.000-04:002008-07-18T02:11:00.000-04:00"Augustinian Monergism is obviously heretical, bei..."Augustinian Monergism is obviously heretical, being directly opposed to its evil twin brother, Pellagianism." <BR/><BR/>Well, well. I find it interesting how every now and then the Eastern Orthodox hatred towards Augustine flares up. EOs just cannot stomach his theology, and are driven nuts by the fact that he has such a prominent place in church history. <BR/><BR/>Being semi-Pelagians at heart, they would sweep Augustine into Orwellian memory hole if they only thought they could get away with it.<BR/><BR/>Some hardcore EOs are openly (and petulantly) accusing Augustine of being a great heretic who mislead the whole Western church:<BR/><BR/>http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_augustine.shtml<BR/><BR/>http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_augustine_refutation_veneration.shtml<BR/><BR/>Do you agree with the notions expressed in the above links, Lvka? Come on, confess.Swamperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779237294469668694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90965975425077988222008-07-18T00:53:00.000-04:002008-07-18T00:53:00.000-04:00Our God is the God of Love (that's the NT definiti...Our God is the God of Love (that's the NT definition of Him), and love with force is called rape, and rape is forbidden by Holy Scripture. Now, Monergism or the belief in "Irresistable Grace" is such a form of spiritual rape (given Your own Biblical Christ-as-Bridegroom and Church-AS-wife symbolism). Were there to be such a thing as "Irresistable Grace", the Scriptures wouldn't speak of such a concept as that of a sin against the Holy Ghost in the first place: which means just that: to wilfully opose God's Holy Grace, given to us by His Holy Spirit. :-(The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55217528933473420232008-07-18T00:46:00.000-04:002008-07-18T00:46:00.000-04:00Augustinian Monergism is obviously heretical, bein...Augustinian <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monergism" REL="nofollow">Monergism</A> is obviously heretical, being directly opposed to its evil twin brother, Pellagianism. As I said elsewhere, heresies come in pairs, since an evil seldom comes alone: <BR/><BR/>Tritheism and Monarchism, (at Niceea)<BR/>Nestorianism and Monophysitism, (3rd and 4th)<BR/>idolatry and Iconoclasm, (7th)<BR/>skepticism and superstitions, <BR/>etc. <BR/><BR/>And both are being contradicted by the 6th Council and Maxim Martyr's theology with which he defended the faith. :-/The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69988165361997661862008-07-18T00:27:00.000-04:002008-07-18T00:27:00.000-04:00The life she gives is to fallen persons, born in t...<I>The life she gives is to fallen persons, born in the image of Adam</I>.<BR/><BR/>...just like Adam, the son of God according to Luke, was made in the Image of God, so his sons are born in his image. But the Spirit is NOT in the Image of God (Scripture nowhere says so), nor is Eve in the likeness of Adam (same reason).<BR/>That's because neither Eve nor the Spirit are obtained through filiation, but through something completely different (procession or being-taken-from-man's-side). From God, but not through sonship; from man, who is in God's image, but not through sonship.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com