One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity

[Clare73]

Of course, surely you agree that God being the Only God, eternal and the sole Creator of all things including spacetime has always existed and will always exist, now and ever and unto the ages of all ages.

Of course!

Just making a point based on the obvious.

Thanks for checking on me, don't let me vere from Christian doctrine on the Trinity.

For without God, nothing could exist or have ever existed or would ever exist in any reality, for there would be no reality without God to create it.

 

[Clare73]

One God... but not one person.. rather three persons. Is that compatible with your view?

God - is a higher more complex term than "person".

One God-->one Being-->three persons

 

[Clare73]

That is not what that passage says or means.
At no point does it say scripture is the only source of theology.

At no point did I say such.

It says what is there is accurate, not that it is the only accurate source.

It says what is there is divine truth, and any and all theology not in agreement with it is in error.

It is the judge of theology.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

so? Doesn't negate my post that you responded to.

Absolutely it does! Rome does not have the authority nor ever has, to make those types of decisions for the entire Church without a Church Council, especially since the original was written and approved at a Church Council...

 

[concretecamper]

You disagreed with mine above. . .


But you agree with mine above. . .

Not cool. . .

Or is it you that has revised their thinking?

follow the bouncing ball.

YOU SAID: every truth must be in agreement with the Bible or it is not Divine truth.

This statement is YOUR thinking. The Bible doesn't teach that.

I was pleased you dropped that notion in your later explanations. I figured you realized you were wrong.

 

[concretecamper]

Rome does not have the authority nor ever has

History proves the opposite.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

History proves the opposite.

No actually, it proves what I have said as historically correct. Rome's revisionist history is what you are using...it is amazing you can actually say that with a straight face since Rome has signed on to many Council rulings and Canons and then blatantly and repeatedly broke them later...all in the name of supposed "Papal supremacy"...

 

[Clare73]

follow the bouncing ball.

YOU SAID: every truth must be in agreement with the Bible or it is not Divine truth.

This statement is YOUR thinking. The Bible doesn't teach that.

Following your rule, neither does the Bible teach that any truth in disagreement with it is divine truth.

So where is the authority for any truth disagreeing with it being divine truth?

 

[concretecamper]

neither does the Bible teach that any truth in disagreement with it is divine truth.

 

[Clare73]

Following your rule , neither does the Bible teach that any truth in disagreement with it is divine truth.

So then where is the authority for any truth disagreeing with it being divine truth?

Agreed. . .the illogic of your rule is manifest.

So it is you that has revised their thinking.

 

[Clare73]

The Nicene Creed was modified and approved in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 831 AD. According to the Creed:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will ignore the later Catholic addition.
In post #62, @SavedByGrace3 made the prudent observation that it could either mean 'proceeds from the presence of the Father' or 'proceeds out of the being of the Father.'

I responded in post #64 by explaining that John 15:26 is talking about ontological procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Indeed, the term 'ekporeuomai (G1607)' means goes out from or flows from.

In post #73, @The Liturgist further explained that "The son is said to be begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Spirit proceeds from the father."

1) But does not the Son himself say he proceeds (exerchomai) from the Father (John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8), just as he says of the Holy Spirit (ekporeuomai) in John 15:26?

In post #70, however, @Clare73 introduced confusion by comparing the term 'exerchomai (G1831)' which indicated procession from the presence, rather than the being, of the Father.

Exerchomai likewise indicates procession from the being of God.

"Out of the heart comes forth (exerchontai) evil thoughts" (Matthew 5:18)
"Out of you will come (exeleusetai) a governor" (Matthew 2:6)
"Did the word go forth from (exelthon), originate with, you?" (1 Corinthians 14:36)

2) Do not the uses of exerchomai in the above mean to flow out, to issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun and, therefore, also mean procession from (exelthon) the being of God in John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8 regarding Jesus?

And in post #72, @BobRyan introduced further confusion by comparing the term 'exapostellō (G1821)' which means sent as a messenger.

 

[concretecamper]

So it is you that has revised their thinking. . .

I'm waiting for the light bulb to go off.

 

[Clare73]

I'm waiting for the light bulb to go off.

I'm waiting for intellectual honesty.

 

[Andrewn]

"Out of the heart comes forth (exerchontai) evil thoughts" (Matthew 5:18)
"Out of you will come (exeleusetai) a governor" (Matthew 2:6)
"Did the word go forth from (exelthon), originate with, you?" (1 Corinthians 14:36)

Exerchomai occurs 222 times in the NT. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, it can be used properly or figuratively. These 3 examples are all figurative according to the Lexicon.

Do not the uses of exerchomai in the above mean to flow out, to issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun and, therefore, means procession from the being of God in John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8?

Exerchomai is used properly in these verses. @SavedByGrace3 explained its use here in post #50:

"Word pictures in the new testament A.T. Robertson: John 16:28 I came out from the Father (exēlthon ek tou patros). Definite act (aorist), the Incarnation, with repetition of ek (out of), while in John_16:27 we have (para tou patros exēlthon) with no practical distinction between ek and para in resultant idea."

And Thayer's Greek Lexicon has the following:
"In the Gospel of John Christ, who by his incarnation left his place with God in heaven, is said ἐξελθεῖν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ: John 16:27 and R G L marginal reading in John 16:28; ἀπό τοῦ Θεοῦ, John 13:3; John 16:30; ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, from his place with God, from God's abode, John 8:42and L text T Tr WH in John 16:28."


The important point is that no theologian ever, that I'm aware of, made the claim that the Son proceeds from the Father the way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Instead, regarding the Son, the Nicene Creed has:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not created,"

 

[Clare73]

"Out of the heart comes forth (exerchontai) evil thoughts" (Matthew 5:18)
"Out of you will come (exeleusetai) a governor" (Matthew 2:6)
"Did the word go forth from (exelthon), originate with, you?" (1 Corinthians 14:36)

Do not the uses of exerchomai in the above mean to flow out, to issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun and, therefore, also mean procession from (exelthon) the being of God in John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8 regarding Jesus?

Exerchomai occurs 222 times in the NT. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, it can be used properly or figuratively. These 3 examples are all figurative according to the Lexicon.

Which alters not the meaning of the word exerchomai.

Exerchomai is used properly in these verses. @SavedByGrace3 explained its use here in post #50:
"Word pictures in the new testament A.T. Robertson: John 16:28 I came out from the Father (exēlthon ek tou patros). Definite act (aorist), the Incarnation, with repetition of
ek (out of), while in John_16:27 we have (para tou patros exēlthon) with no practical distinction between ek and para in resultant idea."

"Came out of the Father". . .does that not clearly mean procession?

And Thayer's Greek Lexicon has the following:

"In the Gospel of John Christ, who by his incarnation left his place with God in heaven, is said ἐξελθεῖν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ: John 16:27 and R G L marginal reading in John 16:28; ἀπό τοῦ Θεοῦ, John 13:3; John 16:30; ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, from his place with God, from God's abode, John 8:42and L text T Tr WH in John 16:28."

Are they in agreement?

The important point is that no theologian ever, that I'm aware of, made the claim that the Son proceeds from the Father the way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Instead, regarding the Son, the Nicene Creed has:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all ages;

Is that not referring to the Incarnation?

Does that exclude the clear procession of the Logos in John 16:28 above?

Does not the Son himself say he proceeds (exerchomai) from the Father in John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8, just as he says of the Holy Spirit (ekporeuomai) in John 15:26?

Anybody?

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course!

Just making a point based on the obvious.

Thanks for checking on me, don't let me vere from Christian doctrine on the Trinity.

I figured you did, so don’t get me wrong; I saw an opportunity to use your hypothetical scenario about the “death of God.” By the way, there is a field called “death of God theology” which attempted to address waning church attendance in the 1960s but also is often as heretical as it sounds, with some adherents of it proposing that God was actually dead, including some ostensibly Christian theologians and a radical Jewish kabbalist who interpreted the strange doctrines of the Kaballah as implying that God had actually died (a concept explored in the thrilling miniseries on the SciFi channel, The Lost Room, which I highly recommend; it dated from the 2000s when they were producing shows like Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG-1 that were vert enjoyable and also extremely beneficial for the economy of British Columbia where virtually all of them were filmed due to Canadian tax credits).

However while that Rabbi’s ideas were great for a sci fi series about ordinary objects from a motel room that mysteriously disappeared in the 1950s that had seemingly magical properties, they are heretical in Jewish orthodoxy ecen given the weirdness of Kaballah and the idea of sephirot, and absurd to Christians. But I have no problems taking ideas from other religions and using them as the basis for science fiction, because its all in the name, fiction, and I feel that CS Lewis got as close as you could to using Orthodox Christian concepts in science fiction with his Space Trilogy, which was very good, especially the morality drama Perelandra and the dystopian science fantasy That Hideous Strength. I am not an enthusiast of the Narnia series however.

 

[The Liturgist]

Which alters not the meaning of the word exerchomai.

"Came out of the Father". . .does that not clearly mean procession?
Are they in agreement?

Is that not referring to the Incarnation?

Does that exclude the clear procession of the Logos in John 16:28 above?

Does not the Son himself say he proceeds (exerchomai) from the Father in John 8:42, John 16:27-28, John 17:8, just as he says of the Holy Spirit (ekporeuomai) in John 15:26?

Anybody?

I think the Palamist view is this relates to the Divine Energies of God, which are immanent we can perceive and interact with, which are like the light which radiates from the Sun, the Divine Essence, which is incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. We find the essence/energies distinction stressed at least as early as the fourth century in the writings of the Cappadocians, but St. Gregory Palamas defended this doctrine and the doctrine of uncreated in defending the Hesychast monks against an accusation of heresy from Barlaam, who after loosing his disputation with St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, converted to Roman Catholicism.

 

[Clare73]

I think the Palamist view is this

Which ones did you have in mind?

relates to the Divine Energies of God, which are immanent we can perceive and interact with, which are like the light which radiates from the Sun, the Divine Essence, which is incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. We find the essence/energies distinction stressed at least as early as the fourth century in the writings of the Cappadocians, but St. Gregory Palamas defended this doctrine and the doctrine of uncreated in defending the Hesychast monks against an accusation of heresy from Barlaam, who after loosing his disputation with St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century, converted to Roman Catholicism.

 

[disciple Clint]

At no point did I say such.

It says what is there is divine truth, and any and all theology not in agreement with it is in error.

It is the judge of theology.

Do I need to point out that it can be divine truth without being all inclusive? Once again I will ask you where in the bible is it stated that the bible is the only source of theology, simply the bible is not supporting sola scriptura. Jesus clearly says, go and teach what I have pass on to you and Paul states:
1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Do we have a record of everything that Paul received from the Lord? No we certainly do not.

 

[Clare73]

Do I need to point out that it can be divine truth without being all inclusive? Once again I will ask you where in the bible is it stated that the bible is the only source of theology,

Did I not answer, that Scripture alone is the judge of all theology. . .i.e., not the source of all theology.

simply the bible is not supporting sola scriptura. Jesus clearly says, go and teach what I have pass on to you and Paul states:
1 Corinthians 11o:23 KJV
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Do we
have a record of everything that Paul received from the Lord? No we certainly do not.

But we do know that anything Paul received from the Lord will not disagree with the record we do have, because what Paul received from the Lord does not contradict itself, in what we do have.

Therefore, Scripture alone remains the judge of all theology.