Three Hypostases/One Ousia

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Does someone have a quality exegesis/exposition to substantiate three hypostases/one ousia?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Does someone have a quality exegesis/exposition to substantiate three hypostases/one ousia?

LOL. I guess not.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, this is the Nicene Christian claim:

There is one God, the Father.

God has a Word and a Spirit.

God has always had a Word and a Spirit.

The Word and Spirit are Divine because they are always from God.

Is that what you want to be exegeted from the Scriptures?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, this is the Nicene Christian claim:

There is one God, the Father.

God has a Word and a Spirit.

God has always had a Word and a Spirit.

The Word and Spirit are Divine because they are always from God.

Agreed.

Is that what you want to be exegeted from the Scriptures?

No. I want God, His Word, and His Spirit to be exegested from scripture specifically as three hypostases/one ousia in accordance with orthodoxy.

 

[Cappadocious]

How are we defining Ousia?

How are we defining Hypostasis?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

How are we defining Ousia?

How are we defining Hypostasis?

That would be part of the exegesis, etc; accounting for any lexical variations.

Three persons in one being. Three substances in one essence. Three subsistences in one substance.

Three whatevers in one whatever.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, before we can begin searching the Scriptures for something, we have to decide what we're looking for.

Hypostasis and ousia have meant very different things throughout the history of philosophy, and the history of Christian thought.

So what do you mean by ousia and hypostasis?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, before we can begin searching the Scriptures for something, we have to decide what we're looking for.

Hypostasis and ousia have meant very different things throughout the history of philosophy, and the history of Christian thought.

So what do you mean by ousia and hypostasis?

Include the etymologies in the exegesis. Is it that difficult? It's orthodoxy, after all.

I'd just like to have someone exegete it from the inspired text. That seems a difficult task.

 

[Cappadocious]

Include the etymologies in the exegesis.

This isn't about etymology. If we took it to etymology, we'd be using pre-socratic definitions of Hypostasis and Ousia.

So are you asking people to, basically, pick definitions for Hypostasis and Ousia and then show that from the Scriptures? I'll take that as a yes and go off of that in my next post.

Is it that difficult? It's orthodoxy, after all.

One man's Orthodoxy is another man's Modalism.

I'd just like to have someone exegete it from the inspired text. That seems a difficult task.

Ah, the inspired text.

The best part of waking up is inspired text in your cup.

 

[Cappadocious]

Three Hypostatia, Homoousios:

Hypostasis = Subsistent Person
Ousia = Properties, qualities, contingent upon the Hypostasis.
Homoousios = Same Properties Belonging Together.

The statement "Three Hypostasia, Homoousios" is heretical if Ousia is understood to be a Hypostasis, the source of the Godhead, preceding the Hypostases, or anything else which would imply that the Ousia is Archon of the Theotis/Godhead. The statement "Three Hypostastia, Homoousios" is also heretical if not used exclusively within the context of relational monarchial Trinitarianism, which may be further defined as:

One God, the Father, source/Archon of Divine Ousia and Divine Hypostasis, unity of the Theotis.

Son, Power, Wisdom, Word of God, receives Divine Hypostasis from God, has the same Ousia by virtue of continuous origin (Divine/Theos).

Spirit of God, Divine Hypostasis from God, has the same Ousia by virtue of continuous origin (Divine/Theos.)

Some places in the Scriptures:

"...In these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact character of His Hypostasis, and upholds all things by the word of His power..." Hebrews 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1

"To the Ages, O YHWH, is your D'var set up in the heavens..." Psalm 119

"The LORD Says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." Psalm 110

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." John 10

"...But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who Proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.." John 15

"And the earth has existed without form, and void; and darkness is upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God fluttering upon the face of the waters. And God Says, Let there be light: and there was light..." Genesis 1

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Three Hypostatia, Homoousios:

Hypostasis = Subsistent Person
Ousia = Properties, qualities, contingent upon the Hypostasis.
Homoousios = Same Properties Belonging Together.

The statement "Three Hypostasia, Homoousios" is heretical if Ousia is understood to be a Hypostasis, the source of the Godhead, preceding the Hypostases, or anything else which would imply that the Ousia is Archon of the Theotis/Godhead. The statement "Three Hypostastia, Homoousios" is also heretical if not used exclusively within the context of relational monarchial Trinitarianism, which may be further defined as:

One God, the Father, source/Archon of Divine Ousia and Divine Hypostasis, unity of the Theotis.

Son, Power, Wisdom, Word of God, receives Divine Hypostasis from God, has the same Ousia by virtue of continuous origin (Divine/Theos).

Spirit of God, Divine Hypostasis from God, has the same Ousia by virtue of continuous origin (Divine/Theos.)

Some places in the Scriptures:

"...In these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact character of His Hypostasis, and upholds all things by the word of His power..." Hebrews 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1

"To the Ages, O YHWH, is your D'var set up in the heavens..." Psalm 119

"The LORD Says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." Psalm 110

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." John 10

"...But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who Proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.." John 15

"And the earth has existed without form, and void; and darkness is upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God fluttering upon the face of the waters. And God Says, Let there be light: and there was light..." Genesis 1

I saw one hypostasis (Heb. 1:3) and no ousia for God. Is there further exegesis to establish the three hypostases and one ousia? And can they be conjoined? Or is it all deductive and inferential?

And how is prosopon/prosopoa relative to F/S/HS and to hypsotasis/es and ousia/ousios?

 

[Cappadocious]

I saw one hypostasis (Heb. 1:3)
and no ousia for God.

Well if you're looking for like, explicit use of the terms, you aren't going to find them. The "three hypostases homoousios" thing was only used to fight neoplatonism with neoplatonism, and I personally think it is of limited use today; and is overused.

After all, virtually no Arians exist today, but Modalists abound.

For the author of Hebrews, God having a Word and Spirit was all that was needed at the time.

And can they be conjoined?

Can what be conjoined?

Or is it all deductive and inferential?

Yes. It is an attempt to speak about God and his Word and his Spirit using Neoplatonic terminology, in order to combat perceived heresy that relied upon Neoplatonic terminology. It was useful in the context of Arian Docetism, which relied upon Neoplatonic arguments.

And how is prosopon/prosopoa relative to F/S/HS and to hypsotasis/es and ousia/ousios?

Prosopon once meant "person", and the Neoplatonists used it in the sense of a temporal individuation of an ousia. That is, the prosopon was a mere shadowy temporary manifestation of the "real" general ousia. The Greek tragedies, writes one theologian, portray the attempt of a Prosopa to become a Hypostasis, and always ultimately failing.

This is why the Nestorians were condemned as heretics. They believed that Jesus Christ was merely a "prosopon", but behind the mask/prosopon, he was *really* two seperate hypostases/ousia.

The Cappadocian Fathers combined Hypostasis as subsistent reality with Prosopon, the person, thus "inventing" the concept of Person as the foundation of being, to which a general ousia is merely contingent.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well if you're looking for like, explicit use of the terms, you aren't going to find them. The "three hypostases homoousios" thing was only used to fight neoplatonism with neoplatonism, and I personally think it is of limited use today; and is overused.

After all, virtually no Arians exist today, but Modalists abound.

For the author of Hebrews, God having a Word and Spirit was all that was needed at the time.

Can what be conjoined?

The three hypostases as one ousia.

Yes. It is an attempt to speak about God and his Word and his Spirit using Neoplatonic terminology, in order to combat perceived heresy that relied upon Neoplatonic terminology. It was useful in the context of Arian Docetism, which relied upon Neoplatonic arguments.

Prosopon once meant "person", and the Neoplatonists used it in the sense of a temporal individuation of an ousia. That is, the prosopon was a mere shadowy temporary manifestation of the "real" general ousia. The Greek tragedies, writes one theologian, portray the attempt of a Prosopa to become a Hypostasis, and always ultimately failing.

This is why the Nestorians were condemned as heretics. They believed that Jesus Christ was merely a "prosopon", but behind the mask/prosopon, he was *really* two seperate hypostases/ousia.

The Cappadocian Fathers combined Hypostasis as subsistent reality with Prosopon, the person, thus "inventing" the concept of Person as the foundation of being, to which a general ousia is merely contingent.

Then how would it be possible, either then or now, to actually exegete three hypostases/one ousia?

And how is it necessary that God be three persons/one being according to ANY Greek OR English terminology?

God, His Logos, and His Spirit. Isn't that the truth?

 

[Cappadocious]

The three hypostases as one ousia.

If you equivocate them, then you've just got modalism again.

Then how would it be possible, either then or now, to actually exegete three hypostases/one ousia?

Cause if you translate Christianity into neoplatonic thought, you get something roughly like that.

And how is it necessary that God be three persons/one being according to ANY Greek OR English terminology?

Well, it was necessary because a bunch of Neoplatonic heretics started deluding everyone into believing that the Word of God was some sort of divine creature-being apart from God, becuse they wanted to preserve the idea of God as some sort of hellenistic unchanging impassible monad. And that's not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So, some Christians decided to fight fire with fire, and use their opponents' philosophy against them.

Unfortunately, Christians in the Western Church didn't understand this, and went rogue with that defensive terminology. But in a Church that maintains God/theFather, with his Word and Spirit, it worked out okay.

God, His Logos, and His Spirit. Isn't that the truth?

Yep.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If you equivocate them, then you've just got modalism again.

Cause if you translate Christianity into neoplatonic thought, you get something roughly like that.

Well, it was necessary because a bunch of Neoplatonic heretics started deluding everyone into believing that the Word of God was some sort of divine creature-being apart from God, becuse they wanted to preserve the idea of God as some sort of hellenistic unchanging impassible monad. And that's not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So, some Christians decided to fight fire with fire, and use their opponents' philosophy against them.

Unfortunately, Christians in the Western Church didn't understand this, and went rogue with that defensive terminology. But in a Church that maintains God/theFather, with his Word and Spirit, it worked out okay.

Yep.

Then why the adamance of three persons? And why must the eternal Logos be an eternal Son?

 

[Cappadocious]

Then why the adamance of three persons?

Because the Word became Flesh, he revealed Himself to be that Word which relates to humans personally. He sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to relate to us personally, within us. If God could not relate personally through his Word and Spirit, we would be worshiping the impassible monad of the Greeks and might as well resign ourselves to stoicism.

And why must the eternal Logos be an eternal Son?

"Son of God" means priest, inheritor, mediator, king, etc. It was used at hebrew coronation ceremonies.

To say that Jesus is the Son of God from the Father before all ages ("through whom [God] made the ages"), in the context of the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah, is to say that every human being can take on this role through Him. You can be incorporated into the inner ministry of God's Word and Spirit. This association was very important to early Christians.

The Word and Son of God, given a ministry from God from before the Ages, becomes a man to work out that ministry humanly and bring all of humanity to God through it.

 

[Cappadocious]

You once wrote:

"Though I disaffirm the later anonymous-but-attributed Athanasian Creed with its Filioque and 'persons' [in Latin, here, meaning contingent personas] terminology, I DO wholly affirm the Nicene while being adamantly, staunchly, vehemently, arduously, assuredly ANTI-Trinitarian."

I would say that you and I are pretty much in agreement, except on one particular point of definition.

I define "The Father, together with His Word and Spirit" as Orthodox Trinitarianism. And what you reject as "Trinitarianism" I would call Modalism or, at best, Quasi-modalism, the Athanasian creed being a rather concise exposition of the latter, IMO.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Because the Word became Flesh,

But that brings us full circle. What was the Word prior to becoming flesh? An additional hypostasis? Scripture only gives us one, and the Son is the express image OF THAT hypostasis, not an additional one as the second of three.

he revealed Himself to be that Word which relates to humans personally.

What does that mean? An eternal additional hypostasis who hypostasized and took on a human nature? Two ousios as one prosopon among three hypostases in one ousia? By any definitions, how is it not convoluted?

He sent the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to relate to us personally, within us.

And this was another additional hypostasis? Or God's Spirit.

If God could not relate personally through his Word and Spirit, we would be worshiping the impassible monad of the Greeks and might as well resign ourselves to stoicism.

Agreed. But were they three hypostases or not? Was there one ousia for these three hypostases or not? We certainly can't just resort to untranslated English terms and conceptualize something taken TO the text to justify an eisegetic predetermination (though most do just that).

"Son of God" means priest, inheritor, mediator, king, etc. It was used at hebrew coronation ceremonies.

Okay.

To say that Jesus is the Son of God from the Father before all ages ("through whom [God] made the ages"), in the context of the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah, is to say that every human being can take on this role through Him.

True. But was the Son of God eternally preexistent as an additional hypostasis? There's no getting around the direct question, regardless of semantics and etymologies.

You can be incorporated into the inner ministry of God's Word and Spirit.

God's actual Logos and Pneuma? Or two additional eternally preexistent hypostases?

This association was very important to early Christians.

The Word and Son of God,

Eternal second hypostasis? Hypostasized as a dual-nature human person (not human being)?

given a ministry from God from before the Ages, becomes a man to work out that ministry humanly and bring all of humanity to God through it.

The question is regarding God's Logos and God's Pneuma. Are they eternally preexistent as persons (by some Greek terminology and its definition by some etymological appliation)? Or is God's Logos actually that... God's literal and actual Logos.

Why the emphasis on three persons?

Maybe you could step me briefly throught the historicy as you understand it from before Tertullian's early-3rd century personae/trinitas through Nicea and Chalcedon and the Cappadocians; and all contrasted in context to Philoso-Gnostic competition and challenges, etc.

Why must the eternal Logos be tranposed into an eternal Son? Why must the God's Logos and God's Spirit be persons (hypostases)?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You once wrote:

"Though I disaffirm the later anonymous-but-attributed Athanasian Creed with its Filioque and 'persons' [in Latin, here, meaning contingent personas] terminology, I DO wholly affirm the Nicene while being adamantly, staunchly, vehemently, arduously, assuredly ANTI-Trinitarian."

Excellent memory or search skills.

I would say that you and I are pretty much in agreement, except on one particular point of definition.

I define "The Father, together with His Word and Spirit" as Orthodox Trinitarianism. And what you reject as "Trinitarianism" I would call Modalism or, at best, Quasi-modalism, the Athanasian creed being a rather concise exposition of the latter, IMO.

Hmmm. Interesting.

My position is that the Son is the immanent prosopon of God's transcendent hypostasis. And that God is not ousia.

God isn't A being. God IS being. God IS existence. He is the I AM. All being and beingS derive from Him.

God, His Logos, and His Spirit. And His Logos became flesh... as the Son. That procession and conception are not inception, so the Son had no beginning. All eternal, all uncreated, all distinct, all concurrent, all non-modal, all divine by ontological subsistence.

 

[Cappadocious]

But that brings us full circle. What was the Word prior to becoming flesh? An additional hypostasis? Scripture only gives us one, and the Son is the express image OF THAT hypostasis, not an additional one as the second of three.

When the Scripture says "hypostasis", it is using the old hellenistic meaning of "hypostasis", which means "ousia". So it is really saying "exact character of the Father's nature/divinity" or something along those lines.

"What does that mean? An eternal additional hypostasis who hypostasized and took on a human nature? Two ousios as one prosopon among three hypostases in one ousia? By any definitions, how is it not convoluted?"

Not very complicated.

God eternally begets and speaks the Word.
God eternally sends the Spirit.
The Word and Spirit each have a distinct ministry, and both relate to the Father in eternity. IN VIRTUE OF THIS ETERNAL RELATIONSHIP, they MUST therefore be persons, under the Christian, not pagan, definition of persons.

God's Word has a ministry to creation, for which he became incarnate. He was not "re-hypostasized", rather, who he was became human.

"And this was another additional hypostasis? Or God's Spirit."

Both, according to the Christian understanding of Personhood as Hypostasis.

"Agreed. But were they three hypostases or not?"

Yes, but they ain't all the same, and the way they relate makes all the difference.


"But was the Son of God eternally preexistent as an additional hypostasis?"

Yes, but the Son of Word of God is *always* continually receiving his Hypostasis from God/the Father. Otherwise he would not be God's Word, he would be some kind of third abstraction in a triangle of nonsense.

Eternal second hypostasis? Hypostasized as a dual-nature human person (not human being)?

Eternal Word is a Hypostasis.
Eternal Word's Hypostasis becomes a human being.
That Hypostasis Re-hypostasizes humanity.

The question is regarding God's Logos and God's Pneuma. Are they eternally preexistent as persons (by some Greek terminology and its definition by some etymological appliation)? Or is God's Logos actually that... God's literal and actual Logos.

God's literal and actual Logos who relates as a Hypostasis in the Christian definition of Hypostasis.

Why the emphasis on three persons?

Because of what Person means to human beings.

Maybe you could step me briefly throught the historicy as you understand it from before Tertullian's early-3rd century personae/trinitas through Nicea and Chalcedon and the Cappadocians; and all contrasted in context to Philoso-Gnostic competition and challenges, etc.

I would simply ask you to read +Zizoulas's "Being as Communion" which does a better job of summarizing that thought.

Why must the eternal Logos be transposed into an eternal Son?

Because it is in line with the creative Ministry of the Word as one of the two hands of God, and it is how we relate to God.

Why must the God's Logos and God's Spirit be persons (hypostases)?

God's Spirit and Word, for us, phenomenologically define Hypostasis, because no one has seen the Father, and he is revealed through his Word and Spirit.

So it's not that we are defining the Word and Spirit and God as "persons"; it's that we define "persons" after how the Word and Spirit relate to the Father.

You dig?

"My position is that the Son is the immanent prosopon of God's transcendent hypostasis. And that God is not ousia."

Sounds Orthodox to me so far, as long as by "prosopon" you don't mean some sort of facade or empty ontology.

"God isn't A being. God IS being. God IS existence. He is the I AM. All being and beingS derive from Him."

Yeah, that's the old Neoplatonic dig.

But I'd say that God is beyond being and non-being. Beyond existence and non-existence. He is not merely the abstract unmoved mover/emanation originator of Plotinus and Aristotle.

"All eternal, all uncreated, all distinct, all concurrent, all non-modal, all divine by ontological subsistence."

Thou art not far from the Christian definition of Divine Hypostasis.