Three Hypostases/One Ousia

[BlindDidymus]

Peace Cappadocious, may I commend you on how well you have explained so much in this conversation. Yet with all due respect brother, there are plenty of Arians around today. Just look at Islam and the JWs. Okay they don't hold exactly what Arius taught, yet nor do the modern Modalists hold exactly what Sabellius taught.

It may also help to hear the views of an Assyrian (or anyone from the Church of the East) regarding how they define these words seeing that they, from what I have heard from others, continued to use the word hypostasis to mean ousia and so confessed two essences in Christ, much as the followers of the Council of Chalcedon confessed two natures in Christ rather than the one united nature (miaphysis) spoken of by St Cyril.

It also sounds as though our friend may be using the word "prosopon" to mean what we Orthodox nowadays mean by "hypostasis". I have heard some say that Mar Nestorius and the Assyrians also use the word "prosopon" to mean something different to what we Orthodox mean; hence why I would like to hear from an Assyrian on this.

I also endorse making many contradictory claims about God, seeing the Lord himself warns us in the Psalms against thinking that he is as we are.

Peace Crandaddy, I read the post of Cappadocious as meaning that God is transends existence, so that God is everywhere, even where one would think nothing exists.

I agree with you that the divine ousia is shared by all Three of the Divine Hypostases. God the Father absolutely IS, God the Son absolutely IS, and God the Holy Spirit absolutely IS because they all three share the exact same Divine Nature, which is to absolutely BE.

Perhaps were one to think of non-being in a way similar to how some think of anti-matter the concept might make some more sense. Does this assist at all?

When you say that you "find a god who dwells in impenetrable darkness and confusion repugnant", how do you reconcile this with the following passages please?:

...if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there (Psalm 139:8)
...The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness (1st Kings 8:12)
...The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness (2nd Chronicles 6:1)
...Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (Exodus 20:21)
He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies (Psalm 18:11)
Clouds and darkness are round about him... (Psalm 97:2)
He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet (2nd Samuel 22:10)
And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies (2nd Samuel 22:12)
I form the light, and create darkness... (Isaiah 45:7)

I agree with you that God is not within the bounds of created existence.
May I please ask why you are using the word 'nature' as the equivalent of 'ousia'? This is confusing seeing that 'physis' is regularly translated as 'nature'? Ousia is usually translated either as 'essence' or 'substance' (meaning a spiritual substance).

 

[BlindDidymus]

Peace knee-v, does not the Holy Bible give us a way of handling new errors when it says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth and no scripture is of any private interpretation? Thus, interpretation must be given by the consensus of the Church.

Peace PneumaPsucheSoma, this is a rather complex issue due to the changing understandings of terms. An Antiochian Orthodox priest I know has mentioned on multiple occasions that the early Christians, in their efforts to describe the Christian beliefs, redefined the meanings of several words so as to be able to express what they were intending.

At the Council of Nicea, hypostasis and ousia were used to mean the same thing - roughly what we would call a spiritual substance or an essence. At the same time, employing the word homoousios was extremely controversial as Paul of Samosata had used this very word to promote his heresy in the previous century, although he meant it in a different way.

I used to be a Modalist as well. In my case, somebody had incorrectly explained the concept of the Trinity to me and what he actually explained was Modalism. Consequently, when I learnt what Modalism was, seeing that was already what I believed I accepted it and rejected Trinitarianism. Later study enabled my to understand the concept of the Trinity correctly and so I came to accept it in time. That said, I have no difficulty affirming the Athanasian Creed when it is understood correctly.

In regards to the usage of the word "persons", it's really not a perfect translation of hypostases yet it is the best word we have in English and at least manages to a limited extent to get across that we don't mean people.

Using the terms ousia & hypostasis as the Orthodox define them, God self-exists as Three hypostasis which are the same ousia. If it helps, think of it this way:

The last verse of Hebrews 12 says our God is a consuming fire. Using this as our basis for an explanation (although all comparisons of God to his creation are bound to fail in some way, forgive the weaknesses please):

The ousia of the fire is one ousia.
The hypostasis of the flame is one.
The hypostasis of the light is one.
The hypostasis of the heat is one.
Yet the flame, the light and the heat all have the same ousia.
This ousia is not divided between the hypostasis but is fully the ousia of each hypostasis, and each hypostasis is the ousia completely.

As the fire does not exist prior to the flame, the light and the heat, nor does the ousia of divinity exist prior to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as the heretic Paul of Samosata concluded (at least in regards to the Father and the Son having originated from one ousia).


This analogy may be continued as follows:
The light is begotten of the flame while each is in the other.
The heat proceeds from the flame through the light.

Does this assist at all?

If I may reply to pshun2404 at this point please, with peace to you also, regarding Hebrews 1:3, Christ is the image visible to humanity (i.e. express image) of God's manifestation of his being (i.e. God's person/hypostasis) according to your definition of hypostasis as "beingness manifest". To return to the analogy of the fire, the light is the visible image of the manifestation of the fire. We can not see the heat. Christ said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. In the same way, one who sees the light of the fire sees the flame yet one can not simply see the flame alone. The light is the express image of the fire's hypostasis. Yet the light is not the hypostasis of the heat. Is this helping?

Back to you PneumaPsucheSoma,
Coming from a miaphysite Church as I do, may I contend that your coinage of the term "Miahypostatic" is inaccurate? When we refer to one nature (i.e. miaphysis) in the Incarnate Word (i.e. Jesus Christ), we mean that the divine-human nature operates as one nature, so that everything which may be attributed to having been done because of either the divinity or the humanity of Christ was done by the other also. E.g. Christ said that he is the Son of God (thus claiming divinity) yet it was the human mouth which moved. Thus both operate together. When Christ ate, he did not cease to be divine while swallowing. When Christ healed the blind man by using spit to make clay, he did not cease to be human while using the power of his divinity. The divine nature and the human nature were united in all that Christ did and so we refer to the one nature (miaphysis) of the Incarnate Word. Yet the same can not be said about the Holy Trinity.

When the Son of God descended from heaven, the hypostasis of the Holy Ghost did not descend, or else why would the Holy Ghost descend when Christ was baptised in the Jordan or again at Pentecost? The hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit clearly operate distinctly. Likewise, when the Father spoke from heaven as Christ stood in the Jordan, the words were not coming out of the mouth of Christ. Thus the hypostasis of the Father and the Son are clearly distinct. To hold a miahypostatic view of God is like saying that the flame,light and heat of a fire all as one hypostasis make clothes dry; but in fact it is the heat alone which does this. The light has no role in such an act but serves only to make the clothes visible (which the heat does not do of its own accord). Meanwhile the flame would consume the clothes if brought into contact with them which neither the light nor the heat do of their own accords. To assert a miahypostatic view, if you wish to use the suffix "mia-" in the same way we who employ the miaphysite christology of St Cyril do, then you must be asserting that the three hypostases act as one, which, as has just been shown, is not the case. So either your view has been shown to be incorrect or you have intended to express something other than what the terminology you have chosen would logically be understood to mean. The only viable way I can seen for you to escape from this difficulty is if you use the term hypostasis both (a) to refer to the ousia of divinity (as occurred at the time of Nicea) and (b) according to its commonly understood meaning in Orthodox circles. This, however, creates a confusion in intents for you when you wish to express your ideas to others who employ standard terminologies.

We agree that God is not inherently within the bounds of existence. However the Being which is God is uncreated. To say that God exists outside of existence may seem confusing yet if it helps, think of it like how anti-matter may be considered a form of non-existence through which God also exists.

Regarding your question about Psalm 33:6, the Logos of the Lord is the Son of God by whom the heavens were made, even as St John 1:3 says. The word "Logos" in Greek refers to the entire thought process and the intelligence behind what comes out of the mouth as well as the actual words. Please also remember that the words 'breath' and 'spirit' are the same in Hebrew. Thus the Psalm confirms the role of the Son and the Holy Ghost in creation. When you ask whose word and breath, see that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The hypostasis of the Son is spoken just as the flame 'speaks' forth the light. As the Father is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, the mouth of God from which the Holy Ghost proceeds may be thought of as like the mouth of a spring from which water proceeds (although again this analogy is imperfect).

We affirm that God alone is uncreated. We specifically say that the Son of God is begotten not created. Likewise we believe that the Holy Ghost is not created but that he proceeds from the Father. We agree that God created all things.

In Genesis we note that God says, Let us create.... These words show that the process of creation was made to happen by all of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity. We have no reason to believe that they were not operating as one while doing this. Considering that I have already shown instances above where each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity does operate distinctly, there is no need for me to answer your challenge. Your error has already been shown despite the apparent conformity of part of Scripture to your inaccurate view.

I would disagree that God created eternity as being eternal is an attribute of God. To say God created eternity is to say that God created a part of himself. When Holy Writ says God inhabiteth eternity it simply means that God lives eternally, for God always is the great I Am. When you say that God did not have his inherent existence in eternity, you are claiming that God does not exist eternally, which is reducing God. You also say that the Logos proceeded from Divinity, which even if by Divinity you mean the Father you are in error for the Son is begotten of (not proceeding from) the Father while the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. Yet your view appears to assert that the Son and Holy Spirit came into being as the Father began to create all things. This would mean that they were created and thus not equally divine as the Father is. Yet this would seem to go against both Orthodox Trinitarianism and your own view. Thus I conclude I may have misunderstood what you mean. Could you clarify please?

You are in error in saying that eternity had an inception, for eternity is the age of all ages. Eternity is a state, not an endless continuation of passing moments. Time had an inception but eternity did not. What's more, time is only an illusion created by God for the past no longer exists and we have no guarantee the future will. There is only now, which is but a moment in the eternal state, effected by prior moments yes, but none of which now still exist. Eternity is the state in which God exists, for he is the Lord of all ages, the eternal God. The word eternal describes the manner in which God exists just as do the words benevolent, kind, omnipotent, etc. Just as we would not say that God created kindness and before then he was not kind, so too we dare not say that God created eternity and before then he was not eternal.

When Christ spoke to Nicodemus he told him the Son of God is in heaven. As in, while Christ spoke on earth, he was in heaven. Thus the Son is not solely the earthly immanent theanthropic prosopon as you say or else he could not have been in heaven when he said he was.

If I may point out to you as well, Christ is the truth. Sacred Scripture even attests that it is not the central truth but rather refers to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1st Timothy 3:15), which is Christ.

Sorry to leave this unfinished when I've so little of your words left to respond to yet I'm falling asleep. Please forgive me and I'll hope to get back to you sometime.

 

[Crandaddy]

Responses are coming to both of you, PPS and BlindDidymus. Hopefully today, but we'll see how it goes.

I haven't been ignoring you, PPS. I've been trying to decipher your meaning in all that you wrote, and I will have some questions for you...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I always appreciate the very gracious and thorough responses from the Eastern folks. Yours is no exception.

Peace PneumaPsucheSoma, this is a rather complex issue due to the changing understandings of terms. An Antiochian Orthodox priest I know has mentioned on multiple occasions that the early Christians, in their efforts to describe the Christian beliefs, redefined the meanings of several words so as to be able to express what they were intending.

Of course they did. They were responding to many external and internal challenges, and that became a multi-faceted and multi-venue process and undertaking. Maintaining true Monotheism while accounting for F/S/HS was and is a monumental task fraught with endless potential for self-refutation and self-contradiction. I commend all participants, even if I don't agreee with the various outcomes all based upon one central omission of the creation of the eternal realm of heaven.

At the Council of Nicea, hypostasis and ousia were used to mean the same thing - roughly what we would call a spiritual substance or an essence. At the same time, employing the word homoousios was extremely controversial as Paul of Samosata had used this very word to promote his heresy in the previous century, although he meant it in a different way.

An excellent summary. So many others attack homoousios without understanding that Paul of Samasota wasn't proposing homoousios in the same manner as at Nicea.

I used to be a Modalist as well.

I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Modalist of any form. That was one of the reasons for my specific delineation above.

In my case, somebody had incorrectly explained the concept of the Trinity to me and what he actually explained was Modalism. Consequently, when I learnt what Modalism was, seeing that was already what I believed I accepted it and rejected Trinitarianism.

And my experience was somewhat the inverse. I was indoctrinated into the rampant conceptualization of the multiple hypostases all being individuated sentient consciousnesses. A very humanized and erroneous conceptual variant and perception of the three hypostases as individuals. It is very much a Triadist belief, and it is quite prevalent and prolific. Multiple minds for the multiple hypostases. Multiple personalities.

Later study enabled my to understand the concept of the Trinity correctly and so I came to accept it in time. That said, I have no difficulty affirming the Athanasian Creed when it is understood correctly.

I most certainly do have difficulty affirming the Athanasian, and it's because it's based solely upon a concept, as I have bolded. I cannot and do not and will not affirm the Athanasian Creed. God is not one ousia/three hypostases. That's not the "how" for the "what" of the TriUnity of F/S/HS.

In regards to the usage of the word "persons", it's really not a perfect translation of hypostases yet it is the best word we have in English and at least manages to a limited extent to get across that we don't mean people.

But there aren't three hypostases TO translate. And the English "person/s" is among the most pitiful of all translational terms in the history of biblical translation. A hypostasis is NOT a person. The best and closest relative understanding of correlating the two is as the adjective "personAL" for substance or subsistence.

Hypostasis is the underlying foundational substantial objective reality of existence of a thing or things. Because a hypostasis is revealed as a prosopon, it can be considered "personAL", but is NOT a person. And in any case, the creation of the eternal heavenly realm is what is ignored, instead depicting an elevated form of Pantheism by declaring that eternity is God or God's state of exisence. Eternity is as much a where and what as it is anything you could declare or postulate to avoid such a truth. And that's why nobody has ever presented the entire truth of Theology Proper. All the pieces are in place, but not framed in the context of God having created ALL.

Using the terms ousia & hypostasis as the Orthodox define them, God self-exists as Three hypostasis which are the same ousia. If it helps, think of it this way:

The last verse of Hebrews 12 says our God is a consuming fire. Using this as our basis for an explanation (although all comparisons of God to his creation are bound to fail in some way, forgive the weaknesses please):

The ousia of the fire is one ousia.
The hypostasis of the flame is one.
The hypostasis of the light is one.
The hypostasis of the heat is one.
Yet the flame, the light and the heat all have the same ousia.
This ousia is not divided between the hypostasis but is fully the ousia of each hypostasis, and each hypostasis is the ousia completely.

As the fire does not exist prior to the flame, the light and the heat, nor does the ousia of divinity exist prior to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as the heretic Paul of Samosata concluded (at least in regards to the Father and the Son having originated from one ousia).

This does not help at all. I well understand the O/orthodox Trinity doctrine. This feeble analogy is just an extension of the doctrine as a concept. God isn't a concept. God is a transcendent ousia who uttered/breathed forth His Logos and Pneuma, the Rhema of the Logos being the entirety of His own Theiotes. The Pneuma and the Logos are the two-fold hypostasis of His ousia, the former being His omnipresence and the latter being His finite localized point of personal presence. Being conjoined to the hypostasis, His ousia also "participated" in the processions into the creation of eternity.

What is perceived as one ousia with internally processed multiple hypostases all in an UNcreated eternal heavenly realm is REALLY God's ousia and a two-fold singular hypostasis. And only the Logos portion of the substance of God's essence was embodied in flesh as Theanthropos.

I have reconciled all the sub-tenets of the O/orthodox Trinity doctrine to accomodate the omitted creation of the eternal heavenly realm that God inhabiteth when/as He spoke and breathed forth the hypostasis of His ousia by the Rhema of His Logos and by His Pneuma.

And it leads to none of the paradoxical issues that are represented by the one ousia/three hypostases/UNcreated eternity view that represents an elevated form of Pantheism.

This analogy may be continued as follows:
The light is begotten of the flame while each is in the other.
The heat proceeds from the flame through the light.

Does this assist at all?

No. I'm quite familiar with this analogy. It still confines God to being contained and constrained by an eternal heavnely realm that He created and inhabiteth when/as He created it. Heaven is a where and a what. God created ALL where and what. Eternity is not God, and eternity does not contain or constrain God. He inhabiteth it. He tents there. It's His abode.

Before the Divine Utterance, there was nothing but God. When He spoke, He inhabiteth both created realms of existence by His Word and His Breath. Those are NOT individuated multiple hypostases. They are the two-fold hypostasis of His ousia, one of which was ultimately embodied in flesh as Theanthropos. The Christ.

Coming from a miaphysite Church as I do, may I contend that your coinage of the term "Miahypostatic" is inaccurate?

You certainly may. That's what the forum is for. I will disagree, as I do with the entire "how" of the O/orthodox Trinity of one ousia/three hypostases/UNcreated eternity.

When we refer to one nature (i.e. miaphysis) in the Incarnate Word (i.e. Jesus Christ), we mean that the divine-human nature operates as one nature, so that everything which may be attributed to having been done because of either the divinity or the humanity of Christ was done by the other also. E.g. Christ said that he is the Son of God (thus claiming divinity) yet it was the human mouth which moved. Thus both operate together. When Christ ate, he did not cease to be divine while swallowing. When Christ healed the blind man by using spit to make clay, he did not cease to be human while using the power of his divinity. The divine nature and the human nature were united in all that Christ did and so we refer to the one nature (miaphysis) of the Incarnate Word.

I agree.

Yet the same can not be said about the Holy Trinity.

I didn't ever say F/S/HS are Miaphysis. Perhaps you've seen the Mia prefix and been diverted to misunderstand my position.

Miahypostatic Trinity is not Miaphysis of the Incarante Logos. It's the correct biblical understanding that God created the eternal heavenly realm as well as the temporal earthly realm of the cosmos.

In transcendence, God was/is ousia. There was nothing else until the Divine Utterance. God spoke/breathed forth His Logos and Pneuma. The content of the Rhema was the entirety of God's Divinity. That was the substance of His essence, uttered/breathed forth.

When the Son of God descended from heaven, the hypostasis of the Holy Ghost did not descend, or else why would the Holy Ghost descend when Christ was baptised in the Jordan or again at Pentecost?

You're still operating and understanding as though a hypostasis is a "person". It's not. The Logos and the Pneuma of God are His Word and His Breath/Spirit. They're not "persons". Only the prosopon of the Incarnate Logos was/is a "person".

The hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit clearly operate distinctly.

There aren't multiple individuated hypostases TO operate distinctly. But the omnipresence of the singular hypostasis is distinct and distinctly functional from the localized presence of the Logos.

Likewise, when the Father spoke from heaven as Christ stood in the Jordan, the words were not coming out of the mouth of Christ. Thus the hypostasis of the Father and the Son are clearly distinct.

And yet this creates a real "issue" of distinguishing the Father hypostasis from the ousia as God. Reference Romans 8:34, where Jesus is depicted as being at the right hand of GOD (Theos), not the right hand of the Father.

Confounding the alleged "persons" is a no-no, so confounding the Father hypostasis with the ousia of God moreso. How is one individuated hypostasis of the alleged three at the right hand of Theos rather than another of the individuated hypostases? The Son hypostasis cannot be such.

To hold a miahypostatic view of God is like saying that the flame,light and heat of a fire all as one hypostasis make clothes dry; but in fact it is the heat alone which does this. The light has no role in such an act but serves only to make the clothes visible (which the heat does not do of its own accord). Meanwhile the flame would consume the clothes if brought into contact with them which neither the light nor the heat do of their own accords.

I'm not bound to some feeble analogy of creation for the Creator, so this is beyond irrelevant. Why hold God so low as to compare Him to a created element as if that is some kind of evidence? The flame isn't even depicted in scripture thus. THIS is what I'm referring to as conceptualization over truth. God is not a literal flame, so He is not bound by the properties and functions you ascribe based on such a menial attempt at representing Him. I will not yield to such attempts to bring God so low, even though I know that is not your intent whatsoever.

To assert a miahypostatic view, if you wish to use the suffix "mia-" in the same way we who employ the miaphysite christology of St Cyril do, then you must be asserting that the three hypostases act as one, which, as has just been shown, is not the case.

I am not in the least. Miahypostatic is NOT miaphysite, even though I would further contend that the Incarnate Logos IS miaphysite as you do.

So either your view has been shown to be incorrect or you have intended to express something other than what the terminology you have chosen would logically be understood to mean.

No. You just don't understand my position. And it's largely because you refuse to acknowledge that God created the heavenly realm; instead preferring to consider it as UNcreated. That's the foundational central omission of all historical opposing views of God's constitution in Theology Proper.

The only viable way I can seen for you to escape from this difficulty is if you use the term hypostasis both (a) to refer to the ousia of divinity (as occurred at the time of Nicea) and (b) according to its commonly understood meaning in Orthodox circles. This, however, creates a confusion in intents for you when you wish to express your ideas to others who employ standard terminologies.

No. God created the eternal heavenly realm. In His own self-existent and self-subsistent Divinity, God is ousia. When He spoke/breathed forth the hypostasis of His ousia, the eternity of heaven was created when/as He inhabiteth it. That singular heavenly-imminent substance of His transcendent ousia was two-fold.

In heaven, what you see as three hypostases of one ousia in a realm you believe is transcendence itself; is the processed two-fold hypostasis and the conjoined transcendent ousia. The Logos pierced to the dividing asunder of God's OWN Pneuma out from God's OWN Self (Soul/Psuche), the Logos to be embodied in flesh as Theanthropos.

Not one hint of Modalism whatsoever. Miahypostatic TriUnity of the F/S/HS. They're just not individuated "persons" according to some low concept of man and his doctrine.

We agree that God is not inherently within the bounds of existence.

No. You THINK you do. But the heavenly realm has existence. God created it. That's why it has existence. God is both beyond existence as transcendent AND within existence AFTER the Divine Utterance. God created ALL. There was no heavenly realm before He spoke.

However the Being which is God is uncreated. To say that God exists outside of existence may seem confusing yet if it helps, think of it like how anti-matter may be considered a form of non-existence through which God also exists.

If only you could grasp the truth to embrace your own declaration.

(continued)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

(continued)

Regarding your question about Psalm 33:6, the Logos of the Lord is the Son of God by whom the heavens were made, even as St John 1:3 says. The word "Logos" in Greek refers to the entire thought process and the intelligence behind what comes out of the mouth as well as the actual words. Please also remember that the words 'breath' and 'spirit' are the same in Hebrew.

Yes, I'm aware.

Thus the Psalm confirms the role of the Son and the Holy Ghost in creation. When you ask whose word and breath, see that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The hypostasis of the Son is spoken just as the flame 'speaks' forth the light.

Enough with the frail temporal analogies. Flames don't speak. God spoke. There was content of expression and expression; and there was breathing with the speaking. Flames don't do any of that. I despise bringing God so low as to depict His very essence and substance by an inanimate temporal element.

The Son proceedeth forth (exerchomai) and the Spirit proceedeth (ekporeuomai). Both proceed from God.

So whose word and breath was it? You've indicated that the Son was spoken forth. How is a hypostasis spoken by an ousia? And what of Psalm 33:6 and the creation of the heavens BY the word? How are the heavens created and the alleged Son hypostasis spoken? And how are the host of the heavens created and the alleged Spirit hypostasis spoken?

Just briefly outline the simple act of creation relative to the alleged multiple hypostases, and in compliance with Psalm 33:6 and other scripture.

Who spoke? Did the ousia speak one of the hypostases? What exactly happened in Psalm 33:6?

As the Father is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity, the mouth of God from which the Holy Ghost proceeds may be thought of as like the mouth of a spring from which water proceeds (although again this analogy is imperfect).

Indeed. I'd prefer scripture and the text of the original langauges with lexical clarification. Analogies are offensive. I don't want to know in feeble conceptualization. I want the literal truth from the text. This has been my criticism all along of such flowery nebulous language.

What is the literal event of Psalm 33:6? Who spoke?

We affirm that God alone is uncreated. We specifically say that the Son of God is begotten not created. Likewise we believe that the Holy Ghost is not created but that he proceeds from the Father. We agree that God created all things.

I don't disagree. It's the "how" that is the problem. I've resolved the error. God is a Miahypostatic TriUnity, not a Dyohypostatic Trinity.

In Genesis we note that God says, Let us create.... These words show that the process of creation was made to happen by all of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity.

Seriously? That's a massive dose of presupposed eisegesis. You don't get to declare such a sweeping superimposed formulated doctrinal truth upon a passage because of a pronoun. This impugns credibility.

You also need to remember that hypostasis isn't "person", so this isn't inherently "person" to "person". And you've taken away all creative impetus and action from the ousia of God. Why did God's ousia not directly create by His Logos as scripture clearly says?

What, exactly, are you insisting the "us" in Gen. 1:26 is? Is it two hypostases being referenced as "us"? Is it the ousia and one or more of the individuated hypostases being referenced as "us"?

I have no issue with this passage and its plurality. I'm not a Modalist. But it doesn't depict what you insist it does. And you can't account for who the "us" is referring to. You can only surmise based upon presupposed doctrinal formulation.

We have no reason to believe that they were not operating as one while doing this.

Nebulous speculation.

Considering that I have already shown instances above where each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity does operate distinctly, there is no need for me to answer your challenge.

You haven't shown F/S/HS to be individuated hypostases. You've only declared it. I affirm F/S/HS are distinct. That's not the issue. You have avoided my challenge out of presupposition and misunderstanding, among other factors.

Do you see how you've just delcared the three hypostases above? F/S/HS indeed operate distinctly, but they are NOT multiple individuated hypostases.

God is a transcendent ousia. The Logos and the Pneuma are a two-fold heavenly-immanent hypostasis. They are all distinct. That doesn't make them all individuated hypostases of an ousia.

Your error has already been shown despite the apparent conformity of part of Scripture to your inaccurate view.

Incorrect. You presume much too much. You've unwittingly presented an immanent and impotent God that depicts an elevated form of Pantheism.

I would disagree that God created eternity

Of course you would. If not, your view crumbles.

as being eternal is an attribute of God.

Of course it is. God is from everlasting to everlasting. Heaven is only everlasting. That's because it had an inception when God created it.

To say God created eternity is to say that God created a part of himself.

Ummm... Nope. It's to say that ALL things are upheld by the Rhema of His power. To say eternity is UNcreated is to make eternity God in some fashion; and that's the O/orthodox position, BTW. That eternity is God. It's not. That's Pantheism. I've corrected that error.

When Holy Writ says God inhabiteth eternity it simply means that God lives eternally, for God always is the great I Am.

No. You haven't bothered to even remedially exegete the text. But that's likely because of the Eastern (and Catholic) position of tradition, perceiving such exegesis to be Sola Scriptura. I get that, but all you've done is oppose the literal syntax of the Hebrew text.

When you say that God did not have his inherent existence in eternity, you are claiming that God does not exist eternally, which is reducing God.

No. It's the inverse. When YOU claim God has His inherent existence in the eternal heavnely realm, YOU exalt the created to contain and constrain God or you make eternity God. Either is what reduces God.

I give God His rightful place. He created ALL. And He did so by His Logos and His Pneuma.

You also say that the Logos proceeded from Divinity, which even if by Divinity you mean the Father you are in error for the Son is begotten of (not proceeding from) the Father while the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

Read John 8:42. The Logos proceeded forth (exerchomai) from God. You still have the paradox of the Father hypostasis and God. Tell me the difference between God and the Father. Remember, Romans shows us the Son seated at the right hand of GOD, not at the right hand of the Father. Please account for that disinction specifically.

Yet your view appears to assert that the Son and Holy Spirit came into being as the Father began to create all things.

Not in the least. The Logos and the Pneuma are eternal and uncreated.

This would mean that they were created and thus not equally divine as the Father is. Yet this would seem to go against both Orthodox Trinitarianism and your own view.

Correct. You simply have been too indoctrinated into the conceptualization of the "how" of one ousia/three hypostases/UNcreated eternity. You can't even conceive of something else that isn't Modalism or Arianism.

Thus I conclude I may have misunderstood what you mean. Could you clarify please?

You have misunderstood. I've tried to clarify in my responses above. Most Dyohypostatic Trinitarians have great difficulty comprehending the Miahypostatic Trinity position. You can't and won't conceive of a created heavenly realm; instead preferring to elevate heaven and eterntiy to be God, whether inherently or by extension.

You are in error in saying that eternity had an inception, for eternity is the age of all ages. Eternity is a state, not an endless continuation of passing moments.

And unless and until you can get past that error, you'll only have an immanent and impotent God. Where did the heavenly realm come from if God didn't create it? It contains and constrains Him, according to your position.

Time had an inception but eternity did not.

UNcreated eternity. Just like God Himself. Your eternity is God. This actually skirts very close to Kabbalah.

What's more, time is only an illusion created by God for the past no longer exists and we have no guarantee the future will.

This is just conceptual speculative semantics that really mean nothing objective.

There is only now, which is but a moment in the eternal state,

The eternal state has moments? Hmmm. Your alleged eternal state of eternity has time/space/matter/energy.

There are whats/whos and wheres; and there are whens; and something vivifies it all. There are events in succession. There is duration and elapsation and sequentiality and perpetuity. There is spatial orientation and juxtaposition. There are whens/wheres/whats as time/space/matter on a plane of existence beyond the temporal. We can't know those properties, but they are readily apparent. And ALL sustained by the Rhema of His dunamis. Energy.

effected by prior moments

Elapsation. Sequentiality. Time.

yes, but none of which now still exist.

Then what exists? Only the "now"? That's a bit esoteric to accompany your other assertions.

Eternity is the state in which God exists, for he is the Lord of all ages, the eternal God. The word eternal describes the manner in which God exists just as do the words benevolent, kind, omnipotent, etc.

Instead of pontificating about English definitions, why don't you just provide the Hebrew term and support your concept. You can't. It won't. As Eastern as your doctrine may be, you have a Western mind. Hebrew doesn't even have representation of tenses as you depict.

Just as we would not say that God created kindness and before then he was not kind, so too we dare not say that God created eternity and before then he was not eternal.

And that has little to do with the eternal realm of heaven other than it's God's own eternality that sustains it. By the Rhema of His dunamis. Created. God created eternity. You may deprive God of His power and sole eternality, but I will not.

When Christ spoke to Nicodemus he told him the Son of God is in heaven. As in, while Christ spoke on earth, he was in heaven. Thus the Son is not solely the earthly immanent theanthropic prosopon as you say or else he could not have been in heaven when he said he was.

You have misunderstood my position.

If I may point out to you as well, Christ is the truth. Sacred Scripture even attests that it is not the central truth but rather refers to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1st Timothy 3:15), which is Christ.

The church. Not an institution of men and their doctrines. The bride is not a distinct entity from believers. You have been institutionalized, as well as conceptualized.

Sorry to leave this unfinished when I've so little of your words left to respond to yet I'm falling asleep. Please forgive me and I'll hope to get back to you sometime.

It's all good. And I have not been adversarial in my words to you. You greatly misunderstand my position. And you don't comprehend the height of God and His ways as the Creator of ALL, including the eternal heavenly realm.

Be blessed until we speak again.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Responses are coming to both of you, PPS and BlindDidymus. Hopefully today, but we'll see how it goes.

It's all good. Have a blessed week until then.

I haven't been ignoring you, PPS. I've been trying to decipher your meaning in all that you wrote, and I will have some questions for you...

I understand. What others don't realize is that I've completely reconciled all the sub-tenets of the Dyohypostatic Trinity doctrine to encompass the creation of eternity. But it represents a shift in understanding.

God is a transcnendent ousia. Before the Divine Utterance, there was nothing but God.

When He spoke, He inhabiteth eternity when/as He created it by His Logos and His Pneuma. His Logos pierced to the dividing asunder of His Spirit out from His Self (Soul). The Spirit and Soul being conjoined, His ousia was brought into created eternity with the procession of His Spirit.

The "threeness" of the TriUnity of God is not of multiple individuated hypostases of a heavenly-immanent ousia. That "threeness" is of God's ousia and the two-fold hypostasis of the Pneuma and the Logos. One essence. One substance. And the Logos became flesh.

The Dyohypostatic Trinity view cannot account for the creaton of the eternal heavenly realm. Eternity is not God. God inhabiteth it when/as He created it.

 

[BlindDidymus]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Thank you for replying so quickly yet I doubt I shall always be able to match you in this regard. Your reply has been interesting yet puzzling. I will commend you greatly on your politeness. Forgive me for failing to reciprocate this kindness so well and hopefully you shan't find this post too offensive whilst realising that I am, to the best of my ability, expressing the historical Orthodox Christian as best I understand it, with a few of my own thoughts added in where I know no words from the Fathers. Shall we then begin with the key point whereon we differ?

God is eternal just as God is love. As love is an attribute of God, so is being eternal. Thus as God never existed without love, neither did he exist without being eternal. If you wish to say that God created love rather than that it is an attribute of his being, how might you reconcile that the unloving God you suppose once existed created love that he might change who he was into a loving God while being unchanging? Again, if you say that God created love, you are saying that God created himself. It is the same when you say that God created eternity. However since you already appear to have said that the divine ousia created the divine hypostases, it would seem you do believe that God created himself (at least partially), which sounds much akin to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, although it seems you hold that the Father is the divine ousia rather than a hypostasis at all.

Your choice of the term "Miahypostatic" is still problematic. The "mia-" implies that the unity is formed from multiple components. As you deny the hypostasis of the Father, rendering him to be ousia only, your unity must be formed from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Yet to hold this you must assert that the two making the unity have different origins or else your use of the suffix "mia-" is incorrect. But you say that both have the same orign, with what you call the divine ousia. Thus what you are proposing is not a miahypostasis but a monohypostasis. This would explain why you say that there aren't multiple individuated hypostases but only a singular hypostasis. In creating a distinction between the localised presence of the Logos and the singular hypostasis you refer to, you have then separated the Son from the miahypostasis you created thus leaving only the Holy Ghost, which again would be a monohypostasis.

To be at the right hand of God simply means to have the power of God. It is an ancient expression and its meaning well known.

It is not I but the Holy Bible which says, For our God is a consuming fire. If God then in his word compares himself to fire, who are you to object to God? Did not the Lord appear to Moses as a flame in the bush and lead the Israelites as a pillar of fire?

By thinking that heaven is a place, rather than a state, you have imagined that there is a requirement for it to be created. Rather, it is the state in which God eternally abides. Thus there is no need for it to be created. It is not a place. But in supposing that it is a place, you have invented a need for it to be created. In doing so, you have said that there was a time when God spoke/breathed forth a two-fold hypostasis of the Logos and the Holy Ghost. This implies that there was a time before God spoke when the Logos and the Holy Ghost did not exist. As the Greek word "Logos" includes the entire thinking process and the intelligence behind what is spoken, this would mean you hold that there was a time when God had no intelligence but then he uttered his own intelligence into existence. But how could the unintelligent God you propose do this?

The Son does not proceed from the Father but is begotten of the Father. You can say the Son came forth from the Father if you like but not that the Son proceeds from the Father as it is the Holy Ghost which proceeds from the Father eternally, not the Son. When St John quotes Christ in saying that he proceeded forth and came from God he is not speaking of the Logos in eternity but in relation to how he descended from heaven to us on the earth. That said, you do recognise the distinction between how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and how Christ said he proceeded []forth[] from the Father so you appear not to have confused the begetting of the Son with the proceeding of the Holy Ghost.

The heavens spoken of in Psalm 33:6 are the physical heavens of the spheres of the earth and the stars of the night.

The Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father. Being begotten is his eternal state, much as how light is begotten of a flame although you can not hear this ancient analogy for your pride has blinded you to the wisdom of the early leaders and theologians of the Church.

It is odd that you insist in distinguishing the two hypostases you confess while insisting that they are united. Again, if you do not believe that they act in unity when saying, Let us create, then what you confess is falsely deemed a miahypostasis. You appear to have succeeded where none before you have in both creating multiple deities and an indivisible monad at the same time. For at the one point you insist that the incarnate Logos is distinct from the singular hypostasis you confess (thus meaning you must either deny the divinity of the incarnate Logos or confess more than one divinity) while at another you insist that the hypostases are united as one in their opperation (or else you could not use the suffix "mia-" without redefining it), while at yet another you deny that the hypostases of God operate in unity to create, while at yet another you have proposed that there was a time when neither the hypostases of the Son or the Holy Ghost existed. Your explanation seems to contradict itself repeatedly.

Pantheism states that the universe is divine. But eternity transcends the universe. You have limited eternity because you do not recognise that it is the state in which God abides. Eternity is not an extended period of time.

You assert that the Logos and the Pneuma are eternal, yet you suppose eternity to have been created. How then can you say that you believe that the Logos was not created if eternity was created and the Logos is eternal?

In refering to those of us who hold the Orthodox Faith as Dyohypostatic, you appear to have misunderstood what we believe about the Holy Trinity, for the word you use implies that we believe in two hypostases when all know we believe in three which are one in ousia.

Considering that you enjoy complex language but struggle to understand simple analogies, perhaps it would have been better to say that now is what humans perceive as a moment yet it is but the eternal state.

Yes, only now exists. The present moment is all that exists. The past has ceased existing. The future has never existed. Only now exists. Time is an illusion. Were it not, you could bring yesterday back. But eternity is the state of all that ever exists and all that never exists; eternity transcends time as God transcends time as being eternal is an attribute of God.

Has it occurred to you that Hebrew was a dead language? The way in which it is understood now could easily have been influenced by the understandings of those who lived much later than when the Sacred Texts where written in that ancient language. Indeed, not even the Fathers of the Church commonly discussed theology in Hebrew. Even the early Syriac Christian communities discussed theology either in Aramaic or in Greek. There is no cause for which theology ought to be discussed in Hebrew.

It is odd that in one sentence you say that God created eternity but in the next refer to God's "sole eternality". Again this makes it sound as though you believe God created himself. How do you define "eternality"?

If I have misunderstood your position then please explain yourself in another way for as it stands all I can see is that you have conflated multiple ancient heresies then redivided them so as to create a new heresy. If you are truly so intelligent, perhaps you ought to write to the Vatican as I have heard they have a prize on offer for anyone who can create a new heresy of biblical origin and support.

The Church is an institution of God, for Christ said, I will establish my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ gave the Apostles spiritual authority on the earth and they passed it onto their successors who are the bishops of the Church. As such, when all bishops of the Church declare the same thing we can be sure this is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Another difficulty of your position is that when the Logos incarnated he became fully man, which includes having a human soul. But the Holy Trinity is spiritual and does not have a soul. Although your view appears to attest that the Father is the soul of the Holy Trinity.

How can you both say that the divine Spirit and Soul are conjoined while also saying they are divided? Especially when Christ says God is spirit.

That is all for now. Considering that I came to this conversation late, it is quite possible that my hasty reading of these pages has led me to misunderstand certain things. Please forgive me should this be the case yet I am trying to comprehend you, as well as the others who have posted here.

 

[BlindDidymus]

Responses are coming to both of you, PPS and BlindDidymus. Hopefully today, but we'll see how it goes.

Thank you but no hurry

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Thank you for replying so quickly yet I doubt I shall always be able to match you in this regard. Your reply has been interesting yet puzzling. I will commend you greatly on your politeness. Forgive me for failing to reciprocate this kindness so well and hopefully you shan't find this post too offensive whilst realising that I am, to the best of my ability, expressing the historical Orthodox Christian as best I understand it, with a few of my own thoughts added in where I know no words from the Fathers. Shall we then begin with the key point whereon we differ?

God is eternal just as God is love. As love is an attribute of God, so is being eternal. Thus as God never existed without love, neither did he exist without being eternal. If you wish to say that God created love rather than that it is an attribute of his being, how might you reconcile that the unloving God you suppose once existed created love that he might change who he was into a loving God while being unchanging? Again, if you say that God created love, you are saying that God created himself. It is the same when you say that God created eternity. However since you already appear to have said that the divine ousia created the divine hypostases, it would seem you do believe that God created himself (at least partially), which sounds much akin to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, although it seems you hold that the Father is the divine ousia rather than a hypostasis at all.

Your choice of the term "Miahypostatic" is still problematic. The "mia-" implies that the unity is formed from multiple components. As you deny the hypostasis of the Father, rendering him to be ousia only, your unity must be formed from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Yet to hold this you must assert that the two making the unity have different origins or else your use of the suffix "mia-" is incorrect. But you say that both have the same orign, with what you call the divine ousia. Thus what you are proposing is not a miahypostasis but a monohypostasis. This would explain why you say that there aren't multiple individuated hypostases but only a singular hypostasis. In creating a distinction between the localised presence of the Logos and the singular hypostasis you refer to, you have then separated the Son from the miahypostasis you created thus leaving only the Holy Ghost, which again would be a monohypostasis.

To be at the right hand of God simply means to have the power of God. It is an ancient expression and its meaning well known.

It is not I but the Holy Bible which says, For our God is a consuming fire. If God then in his word compares himself to fire, who are you to object to God? Did not the Lord appear to Moses as a flame in the bush and lead the Israelites as a pillar of fire?

By thinking that heaven is a place, rather than a state, you have imagined that there is a requirement for it to be created. Rather, it is the state in which God eternally abides. Thus there is no need for it to be created. It is not a place. But in supposing that it is a place, you have invented a need for it to be created. In doing so, you have said that there was a time when God spoke/breathed forth a two-fold hypostasis of the Logos and the Holy Ghost. This implies that there was a time before God spoke when the Logos and the Holy Ghost did not exist. As the Greek word "Logos" includes the entire thinking process and the intelligence behind what is spoken, this would mean you hold that there was a time when God had no intelligence but then he uttered his own intelligence into existence. But how could the unintelligent God you propose do this?

The Son does not proceed from the Father but is begotten of the Father. You can say the Son came forth from the Father if you like but not that the Son proceeds from the Father as it is the Holy Ghost which proceeds from the Father eternally, not the Son. When St John quotes Christ in saying that he proceeded forth and came from God he is not speaking of the Logos in eternity but in relation to how he descended from heaven to us on the earth. That said, you do recognise the distinction between how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and how Christ said he proceeded []forth[] from the Father so you appear not to have confused the begetting of the Son with the proceeding of the Holy Ghost.

The heavens spoken of in Psalm 33:6 are the physical heavens of the spheres of the earth and the stars of the night.

The Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father. Being begotten is his eternal state, much as how light is begotten of a flame although you can not hear this ancient analogy for your pride has blinded you to the wisdom of the early leaders and theologians of the Church.

It is odd that you insist in distinguishing the two hypostases you confess while insisting that they are united. Again, if you do not believe that they act in unity when saying, Let us create, then what you confess is falsely deemed a miahypostasis. You appear to have succeeded where none before you have in both creating multiple deities and an indivisible monad at the same time. For at the one point you insist that the incarnate Logos is distinct from the singular hypostasis you confess (thus meaning you must either deny the divinity of the incarnate Logos or confess more than one divinity) while at another you insist that the hypostases are united as one in their opperation (or else you could not use the suffix "mia-" without redefining it), while at yet another you deny that the hypostases of God operate in unity to create, while at yet another you have proposed that there was a time when neither the hypostases of the Son or the Holy Ghost existed. Your explanation seems to contradict itself repeatedly.

Pantheism states that the universe is divine. But eternity transcends the universe. You have limited eternity because you do not recognise that it is the state in which God abides. Eternity is not an extended period of time.

You assert that the Logos and the Pneuma are eternal, yet you suppose eternity to have been created. How then can you say that you believe that the Logos was not created if eternity was created and the Logos is eternal?

In refering to those of us who hold the Orthodox Faith as Dyohypostatic, you appear to have misunderstood what we believe about the Holy Trinity, for the word you use implies that we believe in two hypostases when all know we believe in three which are one in ousia.

Considering that you enjoy complex language but struggle to understand simple analogies, perhaps it would have been better to say that now is what humans perceive as a moment yet it is but the eternal state.

Yes, only now exists. The present moment is all that exists. The past has ceased existing. The future has never existed. Only now exists. Time is an illusion. Were it not, you could bring yesterday back. But eternity is the state of all that ever exists and all that never exists; eternity transcends time as God transcends time as being eternal is an attribute of God.

Has it occurred to you that Hebrew was a dead language? The way in which it is understood now could easily have been influenced by the understandings of those who lived much later than when the Sacred Texts where written in that ancient language. Indeed, not even the Fathers of the Church commonly discussed theology in Hebrew. Even the early Syriac Christian communities discussed theology either in Aramaic or in Greek. There is no cause for which theology ought to be discussed in Hebrew.

It is odd that in one sentence you say that God created eternity but in the next refer to God's "sole eternality". Again this makes it sound as though you believe God created himself. How do you define "eternality"?

If I have misunderstood your position then please explain yourself in another way for as it stands all I can see is that you have conflated multiple ancient heresies then redivided them so as to create a new heresy. If you are truly so intelligent, perhaps you ought to write to the Vatican as I have heard they have a prize on offer for anyone who can create a new heresy of biblical origin and support.

The Church is an institution of God, for Christ said, I will establish my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Christ gave the Apostles spiritual authority on the earth and they passed it onto their successors who are the bishops of the Church. As such, when all bishops of the Church declare the same thing we can be sure this is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Another difficulty of your position is that when the Logos incarnated he became fully man, which includes having a human soul. But the Holy Trinity is spiritual and does not have a soul. Although your view appears to attest that the Father is the soul of the Holy Trinity.

How can you both say that the divine Spirit and Soul are conjoined while also saying they are divided? Especially when Christ says God is spirit.

That is all for now. Considering that I came to this conversation late, it is quite possible that my hasty reading of these pages has led me to misunderstand certain things. Please forgive me should this be the case yet I am trying to comprehend you, as well as the others who have posted here.

I was posting a detailed response and my iPad died. I'll repost later.

Indeed, you don't understand my position at all; and you inadvertantly misrepresent it at most points. I'll clarity in a succceeding post.

But at least you engage coridally and thoroughly. I very much appreciate that type of discourse.

 

[Crandaddy]

He's the absolute source of all existence. He's beyond existence. Transcendent. There was no existence until He spoke at the Divine Utterance, by which He created ALL.

But here's the problem I see: If we expand the contraction “He's” in your second sentence, we have the sentence “He is beyond existence.” The verb “is” is existential, but the preposition “beyond” is a relational term that implies removal from its object, which in this case is simply existence itself. I maintain that you can't pull the “He” (or anything else, for that matter) away from ALL existence whatsoever and preserve a coherent thought.


To see what I mean, try composing a declarative sentence that neither contains an existential verb, nor is translatable into one that does. It can't be done, because existence is the bedrock of cognition. It's also the bedrock of reality, which is why Western theology has maintained that God's nature is simply to exist.


Existence is a perfection, and indeed, it is the foundational perfection upon which all other perfections (truth, goodness, etc.) supervene, if you will. Something must first be before we can go on to think about or describe it at all. This is why metaphysics, understood by its classical definition as the study of being as being, is traditionally called the “first science.” And until modern times, philosophers and theologians in the Western tradition considered metaphysics to be nothing less than the study of God (theology) as he reveals himself in the natural, created order. Or, as Gottfried Leibniz once put it:


“[M]etaphysics is natural theology, and the same God who is the source of all good is also the principle of all knowledge.”

Correct, which is why ALL views are in error and in need of reconciliation that abrogates them. This leaves us with a Miahypostaticism. A hypostasis is NOT a "person". Hypostasis was utilized to distinguish between ousia, and doesn't represent individuated sentient consciousnesses or personhoods in the human sense at all.

I agree that the Hypostases are not anthropomorphic humans-writ-large. They're not literally persons in the sense that human beings are persons.


Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that we are not true persons. Our personhood is under construction, as it were. We won't be full and complete persons until the imago dei within us is restored to its pristine condition, so that we can look upon the face of God in all his glory. We will then perfectly reflect in creation what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in Essence.

Hypostasis is substance contrasted to essence.

I agree with this as well. However, I'd say that since God's Essence is to exist, it's not an Essence that inheres the Hypostases individually as discrete beings by themselves, who participate in that Essence as individual instances of it. The Divine Essence, since it is simply to exist, is singular (i.e. absolutely one) and concrete (i.e. substantial and not abstract), but it is not a singular substance simply by itself. The singular substantiality of the Essence consists in the Hypostasis. But even so, there can still be three Hypostases Who are all of one and the same Essence.


Each of the Hypostases is an individual substance, but they all share the exact same concrete Essence, which is to absolutely BE. This Essence is, in a sense, strictly identical to each of them, as is each of the Divine properties and attributes. We posit this strict identity because Divine aseity requires that God be metaphysically simple, which entails that he not be composed of any parts whatsoever; for if God were composed of parts, then he would be dependent on those parts for his existence, which would mean that he could not be entirely self-sufficient for his own existence (which is what aseity--from the Latin a se, from (him)self--means).


To be sure, there are very real distinctions in God (Divine simplicity does not necessarily entail modalism, for example), but we account for these distinctions, not by positing ontologically disjoint parts in God, but rather by positing what are known as formal distinctions within the one, indivisible, immutable, and metaphysically simple Divine Essence.

The truth that God created ALL. The O/orthodox position has been that eternity IS God, because God is eternal and is somehow represnetative of eternity itself.

Well, God is eternal in the sense that he's a-temporal (outside of time). Thus, God's eternality is to be understood in an apophatic sense: God is not in time.

Let me begin... GOD CREATED ETERNITY, when/as He inhabiteth it. THIS is the central and shared omission of ALL views, and FOR which they are all compensating in some manner within their formulation.

Before the Divine Utterance, by which God created ALL; there was ONLY God. God alone is UNcreated. God inhabiteth eternity. God did NOT "inhabit Himself".

Eternity had an inception. A beginning. It's a realm of existence. Created. The eternal heavenly realm is created. God does NOT have His inherent existence as one ousia/three hypostases IN eternity. The three hypostases are to compensate for this omission of the central fixture of creation... Eternity of heaven.

God is an utterly transcendent ousia. Period. That's His inherent state. Essence. When/as He spoke/breathed His Logos and Pneuma, BOTH realms of existence were created ex nihilo (out of nothing) as His Logos and Pneuma proceeded forth/proceedeth ex Deo (out of Divinity) when/as He created.

But again, there's the problem of how we can know God's Essence apart from existence. What content might it have that we can even think about and refer to it?


Also, as I see that BlindDidymus has noted, the Logos does not proceed from the Father; he is begotten of the Father “before all worlds,” as the Nicene Creed states.


And furthermore, if the Father, Son, and Spirit are all uncreated, co-equal, and consubstantial, then in what sense did they all “exist” before creation?

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Psalm 33:6

Heaven is a plural noun, and the third heaven is left off as creation. The first heaven is where the fowl fly. The second heaven is the vast celestial expanse of the cosmos as the natural universe. The third heaven is where Paul was caught up, and is the eternal heavenly realm. Eternity. Created. Inhabited.

God is transcendent to the created heavenly realm of eternity that O/orthodox AND heterodox views have confined Him to. And please don't engage cognitive dissonance to somehow insist other views have OR can include the creation of eternity. They don't and can't. They are ALL abrogated AS they are reconciled to the central truth, retaining ALL the necessary sub-tenets of Trinity doctrine while reformulating.

Since this eternal heaven seems to be so important, I think we need to be clear on what it is. Perhaps most importantly, in what sense is it eternal? There are two different senses of “eternal”: There's everlasting eternality, which implies existing forever into the past and/or the future, and then there's a-temporal eternality, which implies being outside of time altogether (I say that God is eternal in the a-temporal sense, BTW). So is this eternal heaven a-temporally eternal, or is it everlastingly eternal? And what other properties does it have?

[/quote]But eternity is created, and ALL formulations resign and constrain God's inherent existence to be "in heaven, and from which He created". Tertullian and all the other formulators adopted this understanding. In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas further delineated the detail of the "internal processions of the Son and the HS".[/quote]

Well, I don't think that Heaven (as the abode of God) is literally a place--at least not a place that's literally physically removed from where we are now. I'd say that Heaven consists in being in the full presence of God. God is everywhere, but his presence is veiled to us, as it were. When the saints are in Heaven, they enjoy the glory of God's presence fully and unveiled, wherever they may be.

They weren't INTERNAL. God ex- (out from) -pressed His Logos and ex- (out from) -haled His Pneuma. And by this Divine Utterance, God inhabiteth eternity when/as He created it. All creation is external to God, though He filled it with His own Breath and Word from it's inception.

But again, did the Son and HS “exist” in any sense prior to creation? And if so, in what sense?

But God's inherent ousia is NOT existence as is portrayed by ALL formulations. Existence was created, and He "formatted" Himself to condescend to inhabit eternity when/as He created it; the substance OF His essence being externalized at the Divine Utterance.

But can existence come from non-existence? Can being come from non-being? Ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing). If the Divine Essence (Ousia) has no being, then how can It be a “thing,” as opposed to no-thing?

Since Spirit/Soul are conjoined and can only be divided asunder (merismos) by the Logos, God's externalized (two-fold) hypostasis (Logos/Pneuma) is conjoined to God's transcendent ousia. The ousia is co-inherent in the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma.

In the created heavenly realm of eternity, God is ousia and two-fold hypostasis (essence and substance). The Logos is NOT the Son until embodied in flesh. God is NOT a Father until the Son's begottenness is consumated within earthly-immanent creation.

So, are the Spirit/Soul, the Logos/Pneuma, and the essence/substance all the same thing--viz., the two-fold hypostasis?


Also, if God isn't a Father until his Son's begottenness is consummated, then what do we make of the Son's being begotten “before all worlds [i.e. eternally],” as per the Nicene Creed?

The key is understanding the Rhema OF the Logos. Rhema is the thing spoken. The subject matter. The topic or content OF the Logos. Logos is the intelligent wisdom and pondered reason OF the Rhema; and IF there is outward expression, it's that expression whether written, spoken, or embodied.

The thing spoken was the entirety of God's transcnendent Divinity. God spoke forth His ousia as hypostasis. Mary's faith hypostasis believed upon that hypostasis within the Rhema of the Logos, and the seed of the Logos was conceived in her womb as the Theanthropic Son.

A second of three hypostases didn't hypostasize and enter the womb. The Logos was the spiritual insemination of life from the life of God's OWN transcendence.

Procession and conception are NOT inception, so the Son had no beginning; being co-terminous with the Logos.

Alright, so could you tell me a bit more about how this Rhema works? Does God literally speak? Does he have a physical mouth, vocal cords, etc.?

Others mistake other subtleties, but ALL are compensating for the shared omission of the created of the heavenly realm of eternity. That's a HUGE omission, and the key demarcation of the initiation of creation by the processions of the Logos and the Pneuma. Now they've been turned into human-esque "persons" or "manifestations"; or have been relegated to being created at some point at procession or conception.

I agree that the Logos and the Pneuma are uncreated, and, as I stated above, I also agree that they're not literally persons in the same sense that ordinary human beings are persons. But I'm still not quite seeing why this eternal heavenly realm is so important...

 

[Crandaddy]

continued...

In the very specific manner I've depicted above, and with further copious exegesis from scripture; God is a Miahypostatic Tri-Unity. But more candidly... In a manner that encompasses His utter transcendence and BOTH created realms of existence, God is Tripartite. Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity. Pneuma-Psuche-Soma of One Theotes. And we are in His image.

So, are you saying that the F/S/HS are three parts of a single Divine Person? In what way would you say that God is personal?


I'd say that personhood essentially consists in communion. A true person cannot exist all by him/herself. It is right to call the F/S/HS “Persons” because our created personhood is modeled, as it were, on their perfect and (a-temporally) eternal Communion with each other.


The F/S/HS are Persons par excellence, and created existence--consisting as it does in the imago dei--is a reflection of, and participation in, the personal Divine life of the Trinity. Indeed, I'd say that we're rightly called “personal” in that we have the capacity to know and love God in a manner that most perfectly reflects the knowledge and love that the Divine Persons have for each other.

It was quite literal, just as scripture says. Our finite minds CAN fathom whatever the oida knowledge of the Spirit conveys to us. I've illustrated it above.

But if it's literal, then doesn't that imply that God literally has a physical mouth, vocal cords, lungs, etc.? How can we preserve God's metaphysical necessity and aseity if he's essentially embodied?

Wow. How can you be unsure of that?

What I have in mind are what are known as truthmakers for necessarily true propositions, such as the proposition that if some object is a triangle, then it has exactly three sides.


Truthmakers are factual states of affairs that make propositions true (hence their name). For example, if I say that “Ayers Rock is in Australia,” my statement is true because the fact of Ayers Rock's being in Australia serves as the truthmaker for the proposition that my statement conveys.


Unlike Ayers Rock, however, truthmakers for necessarily true propositions can't be physical entities (because physical entities can either be or not-be). I'm inclined to say that God himself serves as the single truthmaker for every possible necessarily true proposition, but I've also toyed with the idea that by knowing himself, God “generates” (for lack of a better term) something not unlike a world of Platonic forms that are not strictly identical to God himself (again, however, this is not a view that I favor).

Yep, including eternity. That's been combined with God Himself.

God can combine himself with his creation? Wouldn't this compromise Divine immutability?


I'm also not sure how you'd preserve either the integrity of the Divine Essence or the Creator/creature distinction on such an account.

And what others will also often overlook in their desperate attempts to retain their false forms of doctrine and concepts, is that this also reconciles and abrogates ALL world religions. It leaves them ALL squabbling over metaphysical crumbs. The metaphysical that they attempt to depict as transcendent (but only to the immanent earthly realm of the cosmos, or combined with it via emanation, etc.) is CREATED. And the one true and living God created it.

Okay, but if it “reconciles and abrogated ALL world religions,” then what of the differences between them? What of, say, the Muslim claim that Jesus is not Divine? Christians of course say that he is Divine. These are contradictory claims, and orthodox Christians aren't about to budge on Christ's Divinity. So what gives?

Whatever the highest point of ANY world religion, GOD CREATED THAT. Sorta leaves everyone else as bottom feeders, grappling with created eternity as some great and high thing.

But again, we run into the problem of what content might be left over for God. If even the very highest, most lofty concept that we can even begin to grasp is created, then I fail to see how we've not then put God entirely out of our conceptual and linguistic reach, so that talk of him becomes literally meaningless gibberish.


We'll never ever have full and comprehensive knowledge of God. Even when we see him face to Face in the Blessed Vision, we will only see directly what we can (naturally) only know indirectly in this life, but the Vision will not give us comprehension of the Divine Essence (for this is impossible for creatures to have). But still, even in this life, we must be able to attain some idea of God as he is in himself in order to worship him and seek him.

Because "self-existent" is adjectival rather than being a noun. It's a necessary retrospective contrast FROM existence, which is our only perspective of God as He has revealed Himself successively in created heavenly immanence and then in created earthly immanence. (Post-procession, God DOES have "existence", and in BOTH created realms of existence. But inherently, God is transcendent to existence.)

I'd say something that's at least similar to what you seem to be saying here, in that our natural means of attaining knowledge of God is indirect and mediated through the existing created order. God's Essence is to absolutely BE, but we can't grasp this by directly observing God. We grasp it by observing created being, and then by understanding that that being points to an ultimate first principle of being (who we call “God”). In this way, we attain our foundational, generally revelatory knowledge of God via the “first science” of metaphysics.

God is from everlasting to everlasting, but eternity is not. It simply appears to have an infinite "eternal past" aspect because God inhabiteth it and utterly fills it as the multi-omni Divinity. All things are upheld by the Rhema of his power.

Alright, so here I gather that prior to created eternity, God existed forever into the past, am I correct? If so, then it seems to me that this introduces a problem: Temporal extension compromises Divine aseity because it introduces temporal parts to God, which compromises Divine simplicity (I take it that simplicity is a necessary condition for aseity). A temporally-extended being cannot be wholly present at every time at which it exists. Only a temporal part of it can be present at each moment as it progresses through the course of time, but because it is the same individual being that is present at each moment of its existence, we would say that it is temporally-extended across each of those moments, so that it cannot be wholly present at any one of them.


By being metaphysically simple, God would have to be present in his entirety always and everywhere. He could not be only partly present, because he would not be composed of any parts. He wouldn't even consist of substance that could potentially be divided into parts. This is why philosophers and theologians in the Scholastic tradition often say that God is pure Act of Being. What they mean is that God, as pure and absolute Being (or Existence) itself, has no unactualized potentialities whatsoever. He does not grow or develop or change in any way because there could not possibly be anything better for him to grow or develop or change into. He's absolutely perfect and absolute Perfection in and of himself.


And I might also mention, by the way, that Scholastics understand being and goodness to be really the same thing understood in two different ways. Thus, goodness is what is known as a transcendental of being (meaning that it's a property that transcends Aristotle's categories of being, and is a property of being simply insofar as it is being), and together with truth and unity, it is generally recognized as one of the cardinal transcendentals. Everything that exists is one, is true (insofar as it is rationally known or knowable), and is good (insofar as it is desirable) insofar as it exists, or has being, and the ultimate first principle of each of the transcendentals of being is God, because as ipsum Esse subsistens (susbsistent Being himself), God is the ultimate first principle of being. It follows that God is the supreme Unity (in his Essence, that is; there are three distinct Divine Persons, but leave that aside for now), the supreme Truth (as the supreme Intelligible), and the supreme Good (as the supreme Desirable)

 

[Crandaddy]

continued...

Hence... the substance of God's essence, and in both omnipresence (Pneuma) and more finite localized personAL presence (Logos). By procession (exerchomai and ekporeuomai, respectively), God's own Logos and Pneuma were substantially instantiated (ex Deo) when/as eternity was created (ex nihilo). The substance (hypostasis) of God's essence (ousia).

And in Gnosticism, there is degradation with each "layer" or "level" or "act" of emanation. With procession and conception in creation, there is NO degradation or ANY form or degree of entropy OR mutability. God is forever the immutable transcendent God; though ALSO now having presence and existence in the realms of creation.

Okay, I don't see how you can reconcile the two parts that I've underlined here. If the Logos and Pneuma “were substantially instantiated,” and if both are fully Divine, then I don't see how you can say that God is immutable. Does substantial instantiation (in the sense that you use here) not entail change in God?

The glorified Son as the embodied ousia and hypostasis of God is the everlasting finite point of localized presence for God. His face. The prosopon of God. The personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another.

All to commune with us face to face for all everlasting. And with His Spirit indweling us and vivifying us for all everlasting. We shall see Him as He is. Face to face. No more "glass darkly", but we shall behold Him. In ALL His glory. The glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus. Is. God.

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes indeed! I certainly agree with you that it is through Christ and in him that we see the glory of the Father--now only “through a glass darkly,” but in the life to come, unveiled and in its fullness.

(And there's not one hint of a smidgeon of a whiff of Modalism in anything I've said.)

Nope, can't say that I see any modalism. But this doesn't mean that it's entirely unproblematic. I've spotted a number of issues that at least need some clarification.

 

[Crandaddy]

Peace Crandaddy, I read the post of Cappadocious as meaning that God is transends existence, so that God is everywhere, even where one would think nothing exists.

I agree with you that the divine ousia is shared by all Three of the Divine Hypostases. God the Father absolutely IS, God the Son absolutely IS, and God the Holy Spirit absolutely IS because they all three share the exact same Divine Nature, which is to absolutely BE.

Perhaps were one to think of non-being in a way similar to how some think of anti-matter the concept might make some more sense. Does this assist at all?

Well, I'm no physicist, but I understand that even anti-matter exists in some sense. Similarly, logical laws and mathematical truths would have some sort of existence, even if there were no human (or human-like) minds around to think about them, and the reason this is so (I'd say) is because God necessarily and eternally knows them.

In possible worlds jargon, the world in which absolutely nothing exists--not even the foundational principles of logical or mathematics--is known as the null world. The null world is sometimes referred to as a logical “black hole,” because it is impossible to posit anything at all “inside” of it--even logical laws, like the law of non-contradiction.

I'm not alone in believing that the null world is not possible. In other words, I (and others) believe that in every possible world (i.e. of logical necessity), something has to exist...

When you say that you "find a god who dwells in impenetrable darkness and confusion repugnant", how do you reconcile this with the following passages please?:

...if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there (Psalm 139:8)
...The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness (1st Kings 8:12)
...The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness (2nd Chronicles 6:1)
...Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was (Exodus 20:21)
He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies (Psalm 18:11)
Clouds and darkness are round about him... (Psalm 97:2)
He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet (2nd Samuel 22:10)
And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies (2nd Samuel 22:12)

God's Heavenly abode is not in darkness, but in Light. We perceive his glory as enshrouded in darkness because he has veiled it from us. But at the Eschaton, he'll remove the veil, and we'll see him as he is, face to Face.

I form the light, and create darkness... (Isaiah 45:7)

Indeed he does. Darkness is the absence of light, just as evil is the absence of good, etc.

I agree with you that God is not within the bounds of created existence.
May I please ask why you are using the word 'nature' as the equivalent of 'ousia'? This is confusing seeing that 'physis' is regularly translated as 'nature'? Ousia is usually translated either as 'essence' or 'substance' (meaning a spiritual substance).

In a Trinitarian context, physis and ousia seem to be close enough that the're pretty much interchangeable. My own view is that “Essence” is a better translation of the Divine “Ousia” than “Substance,” because while the Ousia is substantial, it is not a substance in its own right.


It is entirely proper to speak of essences as natures, because that's what they are. The essence of a triangle is to be trilateral, the essence of a man is to be rational, the Essence of God is to BE, etc. These properties are proper to their respective essential natures, and so it is entirely permissible to use “essence” and “nature” interchangeably in such cases.

 

[BlindDidymus]

Thanks Crandaddy,

I see your perspectives on all these things.
I am no physicist either yet follow you in that regard.
I would disagree in regards to your interpretation of Isaiah yet this is because I follow St Irenaeus in believing that God created natural evil and that this is in no way immoral; I do however recognise your perspective in light of the thought of St Augustine. This is a minor difference and not one worth feuding over.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

[BlindDidymus]

Peace PneumaPsucheSoma,

It occurred to me while reading something else that I have been forcing my understanding of how certain words/suffixes ought to be used onto your expressions when I ought to have allowed you to define how you wished to use them for yourself (even if in a non-standard manner) and then considered your expressions from there. Please forgive me for my failure to listen and not endeavoring to understand as I ought.

 

[Crandaddy]

I would disagree in regards to your interpretation of Isaiah yet this is because I follow St Irenaeus in believing that God created natural evil and that this is in no way immoral; I do however recognise your perspective in light of the thought of St Augustine. This is a minor difference and not one worth feuding over.

I don't think Irenaean theodicy is incompatible with Augustinian privation theory. I think it would depend on precisely what we mean by "natural evil." Bear in mind that for Augustine, as well as for the Western tradition that followed him, goodness and being are really identical with each other, so it would depend on whether "natural evil" has actual existence, or whether it's a corruption of something that has actual existence.

And I do think that at least some "natural evils" have actual existence, e.g. pain.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

My pleasure!

 

[Crandaddy]

Edit: misread the post and thought it was addressed to me, sorry.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Greetings again PneumaPsucheSoma,

Thank you for replying so quickly yet I doubt I shall always be able to match you in this regard. Your reply has been interesting yet puzzling. I will commend you greatly on your politeness. Forgive me for failing to reciprocate this kindness so well and hopefully you shan't find this post too offensive whilst realising that I am, to the best of my ability, expressing the historical Orthodox Christian as best I understand it, with a few of my own thoughts added in where I know no words from the Fathers. Shall we then begin with the key point whereon we differ?

All is well. I take no offense at each of us earnestly contending for the faith in this inclement semi-hostile environment of topical discussion. This is the central fundamental truth of all reality, and is thus staunchly contended by most.

God is eternal just as God is love. As love is an attribute of God, so is being eternal.

Yes, but those are adjectives, not nouns. Eternity is a noun. It's a "what" and a "where". It's a sidestep to call it a "state". What's that? It's an environment of existence. A noun. A "what" and/or a "where".

God doesn't need a "state" for His existence. God is Self-existent. He alone is God. And it's His own eternality that frames the created metaphysical heavenly realm of existence that is eternity.

Adh is eternity. God INhabiteth it. He tents there. It's His everlasting abode, provisioned for metaphysical existence of created celestial and ascended terrestrial INhabitants.

Thus as God never existed without love, neither did he exist without being eternal.

Right. And His adjectival eternality is the underlying reality for the noun, eternity. Eternity is a "what". A noun. A place/thing. God created ALL places/things. All things are upheld by the Rhema of His power.

God created BOTH realms of existence. The metaphysical of the third heaven, and the physical of the second and first heavens. Temporality is created. Eternity is also created. Temporality isn't just a "state of being". It's a realm of existence. God's hypostasis upholds both eternity and temporality as the realms of existence for all creation.

The angelic host dont' dwell "in God's state of being". The heavenly host are in a place that's a metaphysically celestial realm of existence that was created. Before the creation of BOTH realms of existence, there was nothing but God in His inherent Self-existence. God doesn't need eternity of heaven to exist.

If you wish to say that God created love rather than that it is an attribute of his being, how might you reconcile that the unloving God you suppose once existed created love that he might change who he was into a loving God while being unchanging? Again, if you say that God created love, you are saying that God created himself. It is the same when you say that God created eternity.

Not in the least. Creation was instantiated into existence from the mind and will of God, and not from His essence.

However since you already appear to have said that the divine ousia created the divine hypostases,

Not in the least. At some point, you have to desist in caricaturing everything to your own baseline of conceptualization.

it would seem you do believe that God created himself (at least partially),

Ummm... Nope. The Logos and the Pneuma are UNcreated, and processed into creation from God's essence. Eternal, both.

which sounds much akin to the heresy of Paul of Samosata, although it seems you hold that the Father is the divine ousia rather than a hypostasis at all.

No Samasotaism. God is inherently a transcendent ousia, co-inherent in the procession of the Spirit.

Your choice of the term "Miahypostatic" is still problematic. The "mia-" implies that the unity is formed from multiple components.

Mia- represents the qualitatively two-fold hypostasis of the Logos and the Pneuma. Both proceeded from the singular transcendent ousia into heavenly and earthly immanence when/as they were created.

I'm fine if that's needs to be Mono- rather than Mia- hypostatic. Whichever fits the truth of the processions. The key is that the Logos and Pnuema are a qualitatively distinct singular hypostasis and the Father is NOT a hypostasis, but a co-inherently-processed ousia with that singular hypostasis.

As you deny the hypostasis of the Father, rendering him to be ousia only, your unity must be formed from the Son and the Holy Ghost.

The qualitatively two-fold singular substance (hypostasis) of God's essence (ousia), processed from utter transcendance into heavenly and earthly immanence when/as they were created.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens (all three of them) made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. It was God's Logos that created the three heavens, and His Pneuma that created the host of them. This was done from God's inherent Self-existence, transcendent to BOTH realms of existence. It's pretty straight-forward and simple.

Yet to hold this you must assert that the two making the unity have different origins or else your use of the suffix "mia-" is incorrect. But you say that both have the same orign, with what you call the divine ousia.

Fine. The Mono- prefix is fine if necessary. But the source within the ousia was whatever corresponds to "apparatus" in an ineffable spirit essence, and the breath and the intelligence aren't from the same internal source within the ousia. That was what predicated the Mia- prefix, but it really doesn't matter since the primary purpose is to contrast to Dyo- in regard to multiple hypostases that are merely heavenly immanent and internally processed within the ousia.

There aren't three hypostases in scripture TO process. And there's the difficulty of the Father hypostasis relative to the ousia itself. There can't then be "One God (ousia) and Father (hypostasis)...".

Thus what you are proposing is not a miahypostasis but a monohypostasis.

Arguable, but fine. I'm okay with Monohypostatic versus Miahypostatic. The point is that God is NOT Dyohypostatic.

This would explain why you say that there aren't multiple individuated hypostases but only a singular hypostasis.

There aren't. It's a fallacy of attempted inference and faux-deduction. It's declared rather than truly extracted from the text in any manner of valid hermeneutics. It was semantics retrofited to a presupposed concept.

In creating a distinction between the localised presence of the Logos and the singular hypostasis you refer to,

There is no distinction. The localized presence of the Logos is the qualitatively two-fold hypostasis with the omnipresent Pneuma. It's a qualitative distinction of substance, not a quantiative distinction. Same substance.

you have then separated the Son from the miahypostasis you created thus leaving only the Holy Ghost, which again would be a monohypostasis.

Not as you perceive; but again, I'm fine with Monohypostatic rather than Mia-. The point is to avoid Dyo-, which is unscriptural.

To be at the right hand of God simply means to have the power of God. It is an ancient expression and its meaning well known.

Agreed. Not a literal GPS-able celestial location of some sort.

It is not I but the Holy Bible which says, For our God is a consuming fire. If God then in his word compares himself to fire, who are you to object to God? Did not the Lord appear to Moses as a flame in the bush and lead the Israelites as a pillar of fire?

I don't recall what your point is here.

By thinking that heaven is a place, rather than a state, you have imagined that there is a requirement for it to be created.

No. By presuming that heaven is a "state" (whatever that is), you have imagined that there is NO requirement for it be created. God is Self-existence. He doesn't need a "state" to exist. And there are the angelic host in that "state". No, it's a place/thing. Eternity is a noun, not just an adjective. From His own mind and will, God created all existence and it was instantiated into existence, neither ex-Deo nor ex-Materia. That included BOTH realms of existence; the metaphysical and the physical.

Rather, it is the state in which God eternally abides.

What's a "state"? And why would God need one? And where is it in the text of scripture? Adh (eternity) is a noun.

Thus there is no need for it to be created. It is not a place.

The angels aren't in a "place"? We don't inhabit a "place" in the everlasting afterlife? The risen, ascended Son is in a "state" that isn't a heavenly "place"?

The heavenly realm of eternity is most certainly a "place". It's a "there", so it's a "where".

But in supposing that it is a place, you have invented a need for it to be created.

It's the inverse. You've presumed a "there" isn't a "where" and dismissed any need for the creation of an entire metaphysical realm of existence for the angelic host AND for our life everlasting.

In doing so, you have said that there was a time when God spoke/breathed forth a two-fold hypostasis of the Logos and the Holy Ghost.

No. There was no time until God created it at the Divine Utterance. There is only "before" the Creative Utterance and "after" is the progression following the inception of all existence. Time is part of created existence and doesn't govern God Himself. God created all "when", just as He created all "where" and "what". God isn't a what at a where and at a when. He is the I AM. And in BOTH realms of existence, He is the multi-omni God.

This implies that there was a time before God spoke when the Logos and the Holy Ghost did not exist.

Ummm... Nope. The Logos and the Pneuma are eternal AS God and WITH God. They are His own Logos and Pneuma, inherent to His Self-existence.

As the Greek word "Logos" includes the entire thinking process and the intelligence behind what is spoken, this would mean you hold that there was a time when God had no intelligence but then he uttered his own intelligence into existence. But how could the unintelligent God you propose do this?

I don't. That would be inane. See above. The key to understanding all this is the Rhema OF the Logos. The Rhema is the content OF wise and intelligent thought and thoroughly contemplated expression. Rhema is the subject matter spoken ABOUT by/through/as the Logos. The substance OF thought and expression.

God's Rhema is the focus of His Logos. He inwardly expended the exhaustive parameters of His own Logos in Self-studied contemplation of the entire unabridged Divinity of Himself to be outwardly expressed. The Rhema substance content was God's own hypostasis of His own ousia, "formatted" to proceed forth from His ousia and be portrayed within and upon the canvas of creations from His mind and will.

The created metaphysical and physical realms were instantiated into existence from God's nous and thelema, into which His Logos and Pneuma concurrently proceeded forth (exerchomai) and proceedeth (ekporeuomai) from the essence of Himself as the two-fold hypostasis of His ousia.

His OWN Logos pierced and partitioned/distributed (merismos) His OWN Spirit out from (ek-) His own transcendent Self (Soul) into both realms of immanence as they were instantiated into existence. No emanation for creation. No createdness for the Logos and the Pneuma.

Procession is not inception. There was never when the Logos and Pneuma were not. They are eternal. And conception of this hypostasis via the hypostasis of Mary's faith hearing the Rhema (which IS God's hypostasis) isn't inception, either. Procession nor conception are inception. The Logos, before and during and after the Incarnation, is UNcreated and eternal. The eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. They're coterminous.

The Son does not proceed from the Father but is begotten of the Father.

Correct. The Logos proceeded forth and came... as the Son. Begotten. Eternally generated to BE the Son. The Logos and the Son are coterminous.

You can say the Son came forth from the Father if you like but not that the Son proceeds from the Father as it is the Holy Ghost which proceeds from the Father eternally, not the Son.

No. The O/orthodox DyoHypoTrin doctrine has both the alleged hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit as INternal procession within the ousia before the Incarnation. That's what's erroneous. Ex-/ek- is EXternal, not INternal. What's missing is God's Self-existent transcendence and a created realm of eternity that aren't differentiated, leaving an immanent and impotent God dependent upon a "state" or "realm" for His own Self-existence.

As Tertullian, the grandfather of the Trinity, said, "The internal Logos became the external Son." He was closer to truth than most.

When St John quotes Christ in saying that he proceeded forth and came from God he is not speaking of the Logos in eternity but in relation to how he descended from heaven to us on the earth.

That's not what was formulated in the O/ortho Creedal DyoHypoTrin doctrine. And in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas further delineated the INternal processions of the (alleged) hypostases within the ousia. It also always leaves the undistinguished paradox of the ousia not being the Father as "the One God and Father..." of the Nicene Creed, etc.

That said, you do recognise the distinction between how the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and how Christ said he proceeded []forth[] from the Father so you appear not to have confused the begetting of the Son with the proceeding of the Holy Ghost.

Correct. But the DyoHypoTrin's eternal generation is still fallacious.

The heavens spoken of in Psalm 33:6 are the physical heavens of the spheres of the earth and the stars of the night.

You have no means of determining that limitation beyond bare assertion. Heavens is always a plural Hebrew noun, even in singular applications. And this is plural. You have no linguistic means of limiting it to two heavens versus three.

And 2Chronicles 2:6 and 1Kings 8:27 speak of the heaven and the heaven of heavens not being able to contain God.

...continued...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

... continued ...

The Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father. Being begotten is his eternal state,

This is a constant bare assertion of conceptualization with a nebulous non-scriptrual semantic. What's an "eternal state"? It's just a made-up band-aid for not conceiving of a created eternity and God's absolute inherent Self-existence beyond ALL creation of BOTH realms of existence.

much as how light is begotten of a flame although you can not hear this ancient analogy for your pride has blinded you to the wisdom of the early leaders and theologians of the Church.

I have copiously and exhaustively read every writing extant of the ANFs and ECFs. They were brilliant and appreciated... and came up just short of finishing their job. I commend them. I respect them. I stand upon their shoulders, giving them appropriate honor without unscripturally reverencing them. And they were majority correct to the tune of over the 90th percentile.

But they missed the central fixture of creation, presuming God to have an "eternal state" instead of being Self-existent as the source of ALL. They combined transendence and created heavenly-immanence and had to compensated for this omission by having an ousia and three hypostases in the same realm, rather than the actual singular transcendent ousia and the processed qualitatively two-fold hypostasis.

They mistook the co-processed ousia and two-fold singular hypostasis for three hypostases, necessitiating a distinction in the Father-hypostasis from the ousia. There is only one God and Father, and it's the ousia Itself as Himself. The substance proceeds from the essence, and it does so from transcendence into heavenly immanence.

It is odd that you insist in distinguishing the two hypostases you confess while insisting that they are united.

It's a QUALitative distinction, not a QUANTitative distinction.

Again, if you do not believe that they act in unity when saying, Let us create, then what you confess is falsely deemed a miahypostasis.

The Logos created the heavens. The Pneuma created/vivified the host thereof. The breath of life is from the Pneuma. It vivifies that which the Logos instantiated into existence in both realms. Whatever works as the prefix is whatever applies. Mono- or Mia-. I don't care which. It's not Dyo-.

You appear to have succeeded where none before you have in both creating multiple deities

Nope. One ousia. Multiple hypostases can be multiple deities if ascribed individuated sentient centers of consciousness and volition, as is the majority dilution and perversion into Triadism of most current professing DyoHypoTrins.

I'm not the one flirting with Polytheism with band-aided semantics. It's the inverse.

and an indivisible monad at the same time.

You think in time-constrained non-dimensional terms.

For at the one point you insist that the incarnate Logos is distinct from the singular hypostasis you confess

Ummm... Nope. Not in the minutest measure. The Logos IS the singular hypostasis. A hypostasis is a substance, not a "person". The "who-ness" is ascribed by the prosopon once Incarnated.

(thus meaning you must either deny the divinity of the incarnate Logos or confess more than one divinity)

Not even close. The Logos is ontologically Divine. The Logos and the Pneuma are the singular substance of the singular ousia of God. It's WAY more One than any perception of the false DyoHypoTrin.

while at another you insist that the hypostases are united as one in their opperation (or else you could not use the suffix "mia-" without redefining it),

No. I'm not concerned whether I have to apply the prefix Mono- or Mia-. The point is that eternity is created, and the processed Logos and Pneuma are a singular hypostasis that is QUALitiatively two-fold. Same substance. Substance OF the essence. Fully ontologically Divine. Not numerically distinct.

No Dyohypostatic Trinity and a combined transcendence and heavenly immanence that is UNcreated as this nebulous "eternal state". That's absurd.

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

while at yet another you deny that the hypostases of God operate in unity to create,

Quite the opposite. See above.

while at yet another you have proposed that there was a time when neither the hypostases of the Son or the Holy Ghost existed.

Nope. The internal substance of the ousia, within the Rhema of the Logos TO be thought and epressed. Eternal. UNcreated.

No emanation for creation. Instantiation. (No ex-Deo. No ex-Materia) No createdness for the Logos and Pneuma. Procession. (Ex-Deo. No ex-Materia. No ex-Nihilo.)

Inception for creation, including eternity AND temporality. NO inception for the Logos or Pneuma.

Your explanation seems to contradict itself repeatedly.

No. You caricature it to your comprehension and other predetermined concepts.

Pantheism states that the universe is divine. But eternity transcends the universe.

Yep. And God's inherent Self-existence transcends eternity. God created it and INhabiteth by His Logos and His Pneuma.

You have limited eternity because you do not recognise that it is the state in which God abides.

You have manufactured a nebulous non-scriptural semantic to compensate for the omission of the creation of eternity along with temporality. What's an "eternal state"? And where is it represented specifically in scripture? And why are there angels in it? And why are we to dwell for everlasting in it?

You eternity is God Himself, being UNcreated. God IS eternity for you. That's fallacious.

Eternity is not an extended period of time.

I didn't define eternity as everlasting increments of duration and elapsation of chronology, etc. That's time in the created cosmos. Time in eternity is an unknown, but there is sequentiality of "when" and "wheres" and "whats" juxtaposed to one another. That's time/space/matter in some metaphysical sense of their properties that we don't know about.

You assert that the Logos and the Pneuma are eternal, yet you suppose eternity to have been created.

Eternity is a noun. Eternality is an adjective. The Logos and the Pneuma are the singular underlying foundational absolute assured substantial objective reality of existence (hypostasis) of ALL existence, both of the metaphsical and the physical.

How then can you say that you believe that the Logos was not created if eternity was created and the Logos is eternal?

See above. The Logos created. The Pneuma vivified. Eternality was necessary to created the everlasting. Eternity had an inception. A beginning. There is no "eternity past". Any sense of that is God Himself in His everlasting abode as He tents in eternity, the place/thing He created.

In refering to those of us who hold the Orthodox Faith as Dyohypostatic, you appear to have misunderstood what we believe about the Holy Trinity,

Nope. I understand every last cobweb. It's not a mystery, it's a formulated doctrine of men with a key foundational omission for which it attempts to compensate.

for the word you use implies that we believe in two hypostases when all know we believe in three which are one in ousia.

I make no such misreprensentation. It's just wrong. Incomplete. Compensating.

Considering that you enjoy complex language but struggle to understand simple analogies, perhaps it would have been better to say that now is what humans perceive as a moment yet it is but the eternal state.

Your semantics of "eternal state" are a pitiful and unfounded crutch that isn't biblical or substantiatable.

Yes, only now exists. The present moment is all that exists. The past has ceased existing. The future has never existed. Only now exists. Time is an illusion. Were it not, you could bring yesterday back. But eternity is the state of all that ever exists and all that never exists; eternity transcends time as God transcends time as being eternal is an attribute of God.

No. You have a fallacious comprehension based on preconceived perceptions. There is time in eternity and it had an inception. It's everlasting, but had a beginning.

God transcends eternity. He tents there as His everlasting abode. The tabernacle typologically depicts His dwelling in the created realm of eternity. The temple typologically depicts His Divinity within Jesus dwelling in the created realm of temporality. Our ascension to everlasting life depicts us as His temple not made with hands.

Three temples. The created eternity of the metaphysical realm of existence. The created temporality of the physical realm of existence. And us.

Has it occurred to you that Hebrew was a dead language? The way in which it is understood now could easily have been influenced by the understandings of those who lived much later than when the Sacred Texts where written in that ancient language.

Has the inverse occurred to you?

Indeed, not even the Fathers of the Church commonly discussed theology in Hebrew. Even the early Syriac Christian communities discussed theology either in Aramaic or in Greek. There is no cause for which theology ought to be discussed in Hebrew.

God's inspired Word is sufficient in its entirety, including Hebrew.

It is odd that in one sentence you say that God created eternity but in the next refer to God's "sole eternality".

The former is a noun, created by God's own Logos contemplating the canvass for His Self-portrait to/for mankind and in which we have the promise of everlasting life in His presence. We don't share His alleged "eternal state" as our everlasing abode. There is no such thing. There is the created metaphysical heavenly realm of existence which is eternity.

Again this makes it sound as though you believe God created himself. How do you define "eternality"?

God's Self-Existent and Self-Subsistent Self-Durative attributes, about which He spoke to instaniate an external facsimile that is upheld by the Rhema of His dunamis just like temporality as a created realm of existence.

His own attribute is represented in the metaphysical created heavenly realm. The noun of eternity is upheld by the Rhema that is the substance of His essence. He spoke eternity to BE. It exists. Having existence, it is derived by Him instantiating it INTO existence by His Logos from His Rhema, by which power its existence is upheld for all everlasting.

If I have misunderstood your position then please explain yourself in another way for as it stands all I can see is that you have conflated multiple ancient heresies then redivided them so as to create a new heresy.

Done, above.

If you are truly so intelligent, perhaps you ought to write to the Vatican as I have heard they have a prize on offer for anyone who can create a new heresy of biblical origin and support.

The Vatican is apostate, as far as I'm concerned. But that's another topic.

The Church is an institution of God,

The Church is the believers as saints, not a separate entity from the people. Just like our government is supposed to be (but also isn't).

for Christ said, I will establish my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Hades NOR Geenna have prevailed against the saints, including Protestants. And even many sects outside the faith have prevailed. Judge nothing before the day. Much is yet to fall in the days to come. We'll see what remains.

Christ gave the Apostles spiritual authority on the earth and they passed it onto their successors who are the bishops of the Church.

I'm not a stauch supporter of the RCC version of AS. The EOC and the Copts have their own distinct variants, and the historicity is impossible to verify for any of them or the Anglicans, etc.

As such, when all bishops of the Church declare the same thing we can be sure this is the pillar and ground of the truth.

No. The dialectic consensus of men isn't inherently the didactic truth of God. They were neither inspired nor infallible, and certainly not impeccable.

Another difficulty of your position is that when the Logos incarnated he became fully man, which includes having a human soul.

Correct. I have no issues with a singular hypostasis relative to Chalcedonian Christology, other than a discussion of details of the conception and propagation OF that human soul of Theanthropos.

But the Holy Trinity is spiritual and does not have a soul.

Ummm... There is no Holy (DyoHypo) Trinity, and scripture is replete with the inverse.

See Matthew 12:18 directly quoting Isaiah 41, for starters. "...my beloved, in whom my soul (psuche/nephesh) is well pleased...". God has a soul. Scripture agrees.

Although your view appears to attest that the Father is the soul of the Holy Trinity.

It IS. God's inherent "Self" (Soul). The absolute Self-existent seat of God's own sentient center of consciousness and volition and emotion. The transcendent ousia, from which the Logos proceeded forth and the Pneuma proceedeth.

How can you both say that the divine Spirit and Soul are conjoined while also saying they are divided? Especially when Christ says God is spirit.

Only the Logos can pierce to the merismos (dividing asunder - partitioning for distribution) of soul and spirit, joints (body) and marrow (soul). The life (nephesh-soul) of the flesh is in the blood. The blood comes from the marrow.

That is all for now. Considering that I came to this conversation late, it is quite possible that my hasty reading of these pages has led me to misunderstand certain things.

It has; but you've been very insightful, even in your misunderstanding and caricature of all I've expressed. Very refreshing in many ways. I commend you.

Please forgive me should this be the case yet I am trying to comprehend you, as well as the others who have posted here.

I applaud your efforts AND you candor. You have engaged in concise and cogent gentlemanly conversation that is rare indeed.

I hope you are able to respond to this soon, in spite of the fact that it has been a protracted exchange.

God's richest blessings to you as we both earnestly contend for the faith once dellivered to the saints.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Peace PneumaPsucheSoma,

It occurred to me while reading something else that I have been forcing my understanding of how certain words/suffixes ought to be used onto your expressions when I ought to have allowed you to define how you wished to use them for yourself (even if in a non-standard manner) and then considered your expressions from there. Please forgive me for my failure to listen and not endeavoring to understand as I ought.

No problem. You've actually caused me to examine the minutiae of distinction between Mia- and Mono- for my formulation.

But my main concern is presenting a qualitiatively two-fold singular hypostasis of the Logos and the Pneuma; and the denouncement of F/S/HS as a Dyohypostatic formulation.