What is ANT Monotheism? How is opposed to Oneness misunderstanding?

[Breckmin]

ANT Monotheism is an alternative Trinitarian theology which claims
that the Catholic Church was guilty of over-defining ontological trinity.

ANT Monotheism is Agnostical Neo-Trinitarian Monotheism which is a
reaction to the statement made historically by St. Gregory that God's
triune existence is "the infinite co-naturality of 3 infinites." An ANT
monotheist claims "we can not know this absolutely." While it is possible
that such an eternal fellowship exists or has always existed, this is a
temporal understanding which is illogical to apply to the atemporal state
of ontological trinity.

IOW, the number 3, for example, is a temporal number and to apply
it to the atemporal state of God's Infinite Existence is not only self-
contradictory, it is also bordering Tri-Theism. The following quote
from an ANT monotheist:

"The problem comes when we go to define God outside of the temporal, or beyond
the finite creation itself. To even suggest a number "three" - is clearly a product of
the temporal. To say that there is fellowship with three distinct "persons" or
"personas" and that this fellowship is a plurality of a Triune Godhead which
exists outside of the temporal raises several problems. A Hebrew accusation
of Tri-Theism would indeed be understandable. ANT Monotheism claims to
say that "we don't know" if this is how God exists." BTW, I particularly have
never liked the translation of the word "Godhead" from the koine Greek. I would
must rather prefer something to the effect of state of God's existence."

Definition clarification: The English word "temporal" here is NOT its primary
meaning of temporary. The word temporal in this context is being used to describe
finite existence and experience which is eternal. "Beyond the temporal" or atemporal
meaning "without temporal experience" is being used to describe timeless or transcendent
existence that is omnipresent throughout all infinite time and infinite 3 dimensional spatial
existence. In mathematics we would define it as being infinite at point "n" (the variable
for dimension - in this case time) at all points of "n" on the infinite Cartesian coordinate
system (x,y,z axis). So here God's atemporal existence is omnipresent at all points of
infinite 3 dimensional spatial existence as well as omnipresent at all points of infinite time.
When something is created..it is finite and it "enters" (or comes into existence) into
God's infinite domain of infinite time and infinite spatial existence which are now effectual
and experienced. God as infinite Creator does not move or travel from point A to point
B because He is everywhere at every"time". The Fourth Century wouldn't have addressed
this transcendent concept because it wasn't often asserted until Boethius or possibly
Augustine of Hippo. There was research on this in the 1980's by Stump and Kretzmann.
Here's one link: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

The argument is made that we "can not know" the ontological state of God's infinite
existence beyond the temporal, because perhaps at this point we are dealing with
the Father which can not be known. Clearly there are theophanies throughout the
Old Testament which bear witness of the existence of the Son prior to Creation
but are these begotten Personal Manifestations of God the Son because of creation?
Or do they exist outside of creation? How can we know? Clearly Jesus created
the world and all matter in the universe and is One with the Father. (note: Begotten
Personal Manifestations here can NOT be isolated on the word "manifestations."
The meanings of begotten and personal are connected premises to Who is being
manifest and the state of distinct persona/personae/hypostasis).

Likewise, with the Holy Spirit of God, clearly the Holy Spirit is Personal Manifestation
of God also, but "is this because of the temporal?" Is spiritual existence itself because
of the "temporal?" Does the Holy Spirit of God, for instance, have an identical personality
as God the Father? Can we limit the existence of the Father by simply calling Him an
"infinite spirit?" What if spiritual existence is potentially infinite, but not "actually"
infinite in its present state of existence? How can we know?

Certainly the Son has a personality that is combined with humanity, so we would expect
the Son's personality as the Hypostatic Union of God and Man to be unique.... but what
do we really know about the Holy Spirit's personality as being different from the Father's?

How "can" we know?

The position of ANT Monotheism is not to isolate on "one spirit" as does Oneness, or
claim the One Spirit must be the Spirit of Christ... ANT Monotheism actually focuses
the existence of Deity as "flowing" from the Father... in that the Father may not be a
Manifestation at all, but rather the Son and the Holy Spirit are two temporal manifestations
(please remember the definition of the word temporal addressed above - as being eternal)
which are the result of/response to creation and are "manifested" (clearly Personal Manifestations)
from the Father. The Father is the very Ordinate of God's Existence outside of the
temporal, perhaps (the position claims to not be able to know), and the Son is the
Personal Manifestation of Sonship and finite expression which comes from the Father.

Likewise, the Holy Spirit is the spiritual begotten Personal Manifestation of the Father, possibly.
The Athanasian Creed says the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Son. Can both be begotten of
the Father? We answer yes...but what does it mean to be begotten of both the Son and the
Father?

In this case, you have a monotheistic structure which is sort of like "One Ordinate"
and two co-existing personal manifestations or two distinct hypostases or personas
which flow from the One God. If you see any inconsistency with "economic trinity"
here, please identify it. Note: the position of ANT Monotheism is to suggest possibilities
and claim NOT to know the ontological state of God's Triune existence outside of the
temporal. It agrees fully with the necessity of the creeds to combat heresy and
make the distinctions of personas for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where it
draws the line is to say "perhaps we shouldn't define God outside of the temporal?"
Perhaps we shouldn't define ontological trinity?

What if God outside of the restriction of time and space is One? What if the God
that Jesus is referring to is actually the Father which can not been seen or known?

The reason He can't be seen or known is because He is beyond the temporal.
Clearly, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the "same God as God the Father." Clearly
Jesus is God the Son, but He is also called "Eternal Father." This does NOT make
Him "God the Father, necessarily, but perhaps it means that He was the Man or
Finite Personal actuality of existence that the Father became before creation and
manifested Himself through theophanies - and then became the baby born in
Bethlehem - we don't know. The question is begged "Can we know for certain?"

In summary, we know that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the
Holy Spirit all three in scripture and they are all three called God. Clearly the
three "He's" must be the One God. But this accounts for distinctions NOT
ontological existences outside of the dimensions of time and space restriction.

Whether we define the distinctions of God as "personas, or hypostases or
personal manifestations, or personal entities, or which ever word we attempt
to assign meaning, - we still have a problem. How do we know that outside
of the temporal, that it "is" not just the Father's existence that Jesus is
talking about, and that both the Son and the Holy Spirit might possibly
be Personal Manifestations which are manifested because of creation
and our perception? In this case, both the Son and the Holy Spirit
would have "existed" with the Father, but not have been separated by
finite perception. It would be possible that both theophanies and incarnation,
as well as spiritual existence itself, would both have been products of
the temporal (not to be disrespectful to our eternal God in heaven if this
is not true).

ANT monotheism is the position which claims "we can't know" for certain.

ANT monotheism also claims that there is an eternal Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Who Exist forever as One God.

ANT monotheism agrees with the wording of the Athanasian Creed in saying that
both the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally begotten of/from the Father.

To summarize: The "Oneness" structure focuses on "One Spirit" of Christ
or One Name which is induced to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and
ANT Monotheism claims Oneness denies the Father's rightful place as the
Ordinate of God's ontological existence.

ANT Monotheism's structure is not to deny classic trinitarian theology,
but is to provide the possibility that both the Son and the Holy Spirit
flow from an atemporal Heavenly Father as Personal Manifestations
(those words can't be isolated individually and equal begotten states)
or two distinct hypostases(imperfect in the English) which are of
the same substance (homoousis) with the Father.

ANT Monotheism proposes that it is a possibility, and that to claim
we can define the ontological atemporal state of God's existence
as being Triune, "may" be a wrongful assertion of Tri-Theism.

Edit: ANT Monotheism does not claim that Jesus was created by the Father
at a point in time. Jesus created the universe and all matter in it and perhaps
it is God "becoming temporal" which is the personification of Christ and His
pre-Incarnate state. ANT Monotheism claims not to know.

If you feel this is heretical in any way shape or form, please let me know.
I Thess. 5:21.

 

[Simonline]

ANT Monotheism is an alternative Trinitarian theology which claims
that the Catholic Church was guilty of over-defining ontological trinity.

ANT Monotheism is Agnostical Neo-Trinitarian Monotheism which is a
reaction to the statement made historically by St. Gregory that God's
triune existence is "the co-naturality of 3 infinites." An ANT monotheist
claims "we can not know this absolutely." While it is possible that such
an eternal fellowship exists or has always existed, this is a temporal
understanding which is illogical to apply to the atemporal state of
ontological trinity.

Except that Gregory's statement is a contradiction of the Athanasian Creed which declares that, apart from the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal God, YHWH, everything else about Him is singular (see the doctrine of Perichoresis Perichoresis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

IOW, the number 3, for example, is a temporal number and to apply it to the atemporal state of God's Infinite Existence is not only self-contradictory, it is also bordering Tri-Theism. The following quote from an ANT monotheist:

"The problem comes when we go to define God outside of the temporal, or beyond the finite creation itself. To even suggest a number "three" - is clearly a product of the temporal. To say that there is fellowship with three separate "persons" or "personas" and that this fellowship is a plurality of a Triune Godhead which exists outside of the temporal raises several problems.

Except that there is nothing 'separate' about the one God (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) The Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator are distinct, not separate (that's finite Tri-theism which is heresy).

A Hebrew accusation of Tri-Theism would indeed be understandable. ANT Monotheism claims to say that "we don't know" if this is how God exists.

But that isn't true. YHWH has revealed Himself as Three Distinct Persons Whom we designate as 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit'. He has also revealed Himself to be both Eternal (Isa.44:6; 48:12; Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17). That means that there is no difference between the 'ontological' Trinity and the 'economic' Trinity. YHWH has revealed Himself as both Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal.

I particularly have never liked the translation of the word "Godhead" from the koine Greek. I would must rather prefer something to the effect of state of God's existence."

*shrug*

The argument is made that we "can not know" the ontological state of God's infinite existence beyond the temporal, because perhaps at this point we are dealing with the Father which can not be known.

No, we are dealing with the One Tri-Personal (not Mono-Personal) Divine Creator, YHWH. All that we can know about Him from an Eternal perspective is what He chooses to temporally reveal to us through the Divine Revelation that is Scripture.

Clearly there are theophanies throughout the Old Testament which bear witness of the existence of the Son prior to Creation but are these Personal Manifestations of God the Son because of creation? Or do they exist outside of creation? How can we know? Clearly Jesus created and is One with the Father.

No. There is no distinction between the 'ontological' and the 'economic' Trinity. The Three Persons Who are the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator are NOT simply temporal manifestations of an essentially Mono-Personal non-corporeal Entity (i.e. Sabellianism/Modalism).

Likewise, with the Holy Spirit of God, clearly the Holy Spirit is a Personal Manifestation of God also, but "is this because of the temporal?"

No. (Mal.3:6). Immutability is an essential component of Absolute Reality (i.e. God) of which there can be only one.

Is spiritual existence itself because of the "temporal?" Does the Holy Spirit of God, for instance, have an identical personality as God the Father?

The Third Person, as the Holy Spirit of God, is also the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit of the Son (since the Father [First Person] and the Son [Second Person] are also Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH). This is demonstrated by the fact that it was the Holy Spirit Who overshadowed Mary and caused her to give birth to the Messiah even though the Messiah is always said to be the Son of the Father rather than the Son of the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:35) and it was the Holy Spirit who fulfilled the Messiah's promise to His disciples that He (and not another) would be with them always even to the very end of the age (Matt.28:20(b); Jn.16:5-15; Acts.2).

Spiritual Existence itself cannot be 'economic' in nature otherwise it would be the Creation rather than YHWH that is Absolute Reality. YHWH has declared Himself, not His Creation, to be Absolute Reality and essentially Spirit (Jn.4:24).

Certainly the Son has a personality that is combined with humanity, so we would expect the Son's personality as the Hypostatic Union of God and Man to be unique.... but what do we really know about the Holy Spirit's personality as being different from the Father's?

How "can" we know?

Who says that they are different? We know from the Athanasian Creed that the First Person is the 'Ordinate' Person of the Tri-Personal Entity, that the Second Person is both Eternally and Immutably begotten of the First Person and that the Third Person Eternally and Immutably proceeds from both the First and the Second Person (which is how we know that there is only one 'Father', only one 'Son' and only one 'Holy Spirit' rather than any other combinations of the Three Persons).

The Scriptures are clear that in Eternity (i.e. 'in the Begining') the Word is both with God and is God (Jn.1:1) and therefore is also Personal rather than abstract principle or concept.

The position of ANT Monotheism is not to isolate on "one spirit" as does Oneness, or claim the One Spirit must be the Spirit of Christ... ANT Monotheism actually focuses the existence of Deity as "flowing" from the Father... in that the Father may not be a Manifestation at all, but rather the Son and the Holy Spirit are two temporal manifestations which are the result of creation and are "manifested" (clearly Personal Manifestations)
from the Father.

Then, when the Son declared Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last (Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) He was clearly lying?! If the Word is God (Jn.1:1) then the Word is both Eternal and Immutable (i.e. absolutely ontological rather than 'economic') otherwise He is not essentially God but only a temporal 'economic' manifestation of God that can be 'here today, gone tomorrow' (Heb.13:8)?!

Furthermore the Messiah would no longer be 'Emmanuel' - 'God with us' (Matt.1:23) since He would only be a mere 'temporal manifestation' of God rather than God Himself?!

The idea that God is essentially Mono-Personal but who temporally manifests Himself as multi-Personal is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism.

The Father is the very Ordinate of God's Existence outside of the temporal, perhaps (the position claims to not be able to know), and the Son is the Personal Manifestation of Sonship and finite expression which comes from the Father.

Again, this would mean that the Son, in declaring Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last (Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13), was lying?!

Likewise, the Holy Spirit is the spiritual Personal Manifestation of the Father, possibly.

Definitely, but He is also the Personal Manifestation of the Son (who is not simply another manifestation of the Father) as well as Existing as a distinct Person in His own Right (see the doctrine of Perichoresis Perichoresis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

In this case, you have a monotheistic structure which is sort of like "One Ordinate" and two co-existing personal manifestations or two distinct hypostases or personas which flow from the One God.

No. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not mere 'economic' manifestations of an ontologically Mono-Personal God. They are the Second and Third Persons of an ontologically Tri-Personal God Who Exists as both Eternal and Immutable.

continued...

 

[Simonline]

If you see any inconsistency with "economic trinity" here, please identify it. Note: the position of ANT Monotheism is to suggest possibilities and claim NOT to know the ontological state of God's Triune existence outside of the temporal. It agrees fully with the necessity of the creeds to combat heresy and make the distinctions of personas for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where it draws the line is to say "perhaps we shouldn't define God outside of the temporal?" Perhaps we shouldn't define ontological trinity?

This stance is very dangerous in reducing God to mere economics. God has not revealed Himself to us solely from an economic perspective. He wants us to know Him from an ontological perspective as well as from an economic perspective. Whilst we obviously cannot know God in the way that God knows Himself, that does not mean that we cannot know God at all. God has revealed to us all that we need to know about Him during this lifetime and maybe when we graduate and receive our resurrection bodies then we will know and understand reality better than we do now but even now we know enough to know that God is not ontologically Mono-Personal with multiple 'economic' manifestations of Himself?! That would mean that what died upon the cross was not God Himself but a mere temporal manifestation of God [Divine leger demain] (Acts.20:28(b))?!

What if God outside of the restriction of time and space is One?

Both within and without the Creation God is One (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) but One that Exists as Tri-Personal rather than Mono-Personal.

What if the God that Jesus is referring to is actually the Father which can not been seen or known?

The Scriptures reveal that to us (Gen.32:30; Ex.33:20). However they also reveal that to see the Messiah is to see the Father (Jn.14:5-14).

The reason He can't be seen or known is because He is beyond the temporal.

No, The reason why God as Spirit cannot be seen is because there is nothing to see. That which is non-corporeal cannot be seen by that which is corporeal.

Clearly, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the "same God as God the Father."

No. The Son and the Holy Spirit are the same Tri-Personal God as is the Father but Jesus of Nazareth is the human incarnation of the Son and as such is human, not Divine.

Clearly Jesus is God the Son, but He is also called "Eternal Father."

No. The Messiah (i.e. the Son existing as both Divine and human) is [economically speaking] the 'Son of God'/'Son of Man' (i.e. God incarnate as a human creature). 'God the Son' is [ontologically speaking] the Second Person of the Trinity. The two natures (especially in relation to the hypostatic union) must be distinguished (but NOT separated) at all times.

The Son Existing as Divine (not human) is called the 'Everlasting Father' (Isa.9:6).

This does NOT make Him "God the Father, necessarily, but perhaps it means that He was the Man or Finite Personal actuality of existence that the Father became before creation and manifested Himself through theophanies - and then became the baby born in Bethlehem - we don't know.

No. The Second Person of the Trinity is Infinitely Personal and as such is both Eternal and Immutable. The Father did NOT 'become' anything either before during or after the Creation otherwise He would not be either Eternal or Immutable?! The Scriptures reveal that it was the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH, not the First, Who has incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. YHWH Exists as Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal and not Mono-Personally modalistic.

The question is begged "Can we know for certain?"

Yes, we can and what's more, we do. These arguments have already been thrashed out during the course of Church history and this is just another generation of people who are not willing to accept the authority of the Divine Revelation as absolute.

In summary, we know that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all three in scripture and they are all three called God. Clearly the three "He's" must be the One God.

No. The ONE 'He' (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13). He is Tri-Personal not Mono-Personal.

But this accounts for distinctions NOT ontological existences outside of the dimensions of time and space restriction.

No. That which is ontological is also economic and vice versa. The distinction between ontological and economic is a false one.

Whether we define the distinctions of God as "personas, or hypostases or
personal manifestations, or personal entities, or which ever word we attempt to assign meaning, - we still have a problem. How do we know that outside of the temporal, that it "is" not just the Father's existence that Jesus is talking about, and that both the Son and the Holy Spirit might possibly be Personal Manifestations which are manifested because of creation and our perception? In this case, both the Son and the Holy Spirit would have "existed" with the Father, but not have been separated by finite perception. It would be possible that both theophanies and incarnation, as well as spiritual existence itself, would both have been products of the temporal (not to be disrespectful to our eternal God in heaven if this is not true).[/quote]

Such a notion is ridiculous. If you ontologically remove not only the Three distinct Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH but also 'spiritual existence itself' then what remains is absolutely nothing and you are left with the humanistic evolutionist's view that we brought ourselves into existence?! Those who seriously believe this [Richard Dawkins et. al.] are desperately in need of incarceration within a lunatic asylum

ANT monotheism is the position which claims "we can't know" for certain.

Just because ANT monotheists culpably choose 'not to know' does not mean that the rest of us 'cannot know' (2Cor.6:16)

To summarize: The "Oneness" structure focuses on "One Spirit" of Christ
or One Name which is induce to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and
ANT Monotheism claims Oneness denies the Father's rightful place as the
Ordinate of God's ontological existence.

ANT Monotheism's structure is not to deny classic trinitarian theology,
but is to provide the possibility that both the Son and the Holy Spirit
flow from an atemporal Heavenly Father as Personal Manifestations
or two distinct hypostases(imperfect in the English) which are of
the same substance (homoousis) with the Father.

ANT Monotheism proposes that it is a possibility, and that to claim
we can define the ontological atemporal state of God's existence
as being Triune, "may" be a wrongful assertion of Tri-Theism.

Sorry, but, as an orthodox Trinitarian, I completely disagree. Either God is Absolute Reality and as such is both Eternal and Immutable or He is not in which case He is reduced to being the largest finite creature known and we should begin our search to find the true Divine Creator Who really is Absolute Reality on the basis of Whom all other finite contingent reality exists and is sustained.

Edit: ANT Monotheism does not claim that Jesus was created by the Father at a point in time.

Even though He was (i.e. created by God at a very specific point in history somewhere between 6-4BC)?

Jesus created the universe and all matter in it and perhaps it is God "becoming temporal" which is the personification of Christ and His pre-Incarnate state.

Pure ontological absurdity?! It was the one Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH, not the human creature Jesus of Nazareth, Who brought the Creation into existence ex nihilo. Furthermore, since God is both Eternal and Immutable then by definition He, as ontologically Divine, CANNOT 'become temporal' (or anything else for that matter) other than what He already is. Furthermore, the Son Existing as Divine is NOT in any way finite. Only existing as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth is the Son also existing as finite.

ANT Monotheism claims not to know.

If you feel this is heretical in any way shape or form, please let me know.
I Thess. 5:21.

I just did.

Simonline.

 

[Breckmin]

Another post on ANT monotheism.

Above is a link to another thread

 

[Simonline]

Above is a link to another thread

To which link exactly are you referring?!

Simonline.

 

[Breckmin]

"To even suggest a number "three" - is clearly a product of the temporal. To say that there is fellowship with three separate "persons" or "personas" and that this fellowship is a plurality of a Triune Godhead which exists outside of the temporal raises several problems." - my misuse of one word
which made the communication inaccurate

Except that there is nothing 'separate' about the one God (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) The Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator are distinct, not separate (that's finite Tri-theism which is heresy).

First, let me thank you Simonline for taking the time to respond to this
thread. It should have read "fellowship of three distinct personas" instead
of using the word "separate." The issue, however, was "fellowship" and
how can you have "felllowship" if you are One or Alone...
Before you answer this imperfection also...please understand that I have
intentionally been holding off answering your posts because I have been
in prayer regarding the accuracy of what I am attempting to communicate
- and whether or not we will once again drift into semantics.

I edited my original post and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The co-eternal fellowship of the Trinity is NOT in dispute here...

It is the question of "over-defining" and the question of whether God
is ONE in an atemporal state that is consistent with MONOTHEISM.

That is what the Hebrews believed. That is what the O.T. teaches.

That is what is addressed when we look at English words that have
evolved for centuries into meanings which are different from persona
and hypostasis.

I understand that you believe you are correcting this theology...but
every word you write is pretty much in agreement with it...especially
when you use the word Tri-Personal.

 

[Breckmin]

Except that Gregory's statement is a contradiction of the Athanasian Creed which declares that, apart from the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal God, YHWH, everything else about Him is singular (see the doctrine of Perichoresis Perichoresis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

When you say "everything else about Him is singular" you are caught in
the trap of saying something about Him is NOT singular. You are making
the assertion that Gregory's statement "the infinite co-naturality of three
infinites" is in contradiction with the Athanasian Creed.... can you explain
this contradiction you are asserting a little more in detail? Are you asserting
that Catholic catechism is wrong? That the infinite co-naturality of three
infinites is NOT a proper understanding of the Trinity?

Perichoresis that was developed by St John is not at issue here regarding
the original statement. I do not believe that St. Gregory in the 4th
Century would have necessarily agreed with everything that John of
Damascus detailed in the Eighth Century. So I would say that the ANT
monotheist claim "we can't know ontological trinity beyond the temporal"
still stands...because it is independent of details regarding perichoresis.

 

[Breckmin]

Except that there is nothing 'separate' about the one God (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) The Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator are distinct, not separate (that's finite Tri-theism which is heresy).

As an ANT montheist I do not like using the English words "Three Persons"
because over the past 1600 or 1700 years the word persons has evolved
to mean "people." This is a contemporary problem that needs to be addressed.

We need to address conventional meanings in our culture with the words
in which we use. When "you" say Three Persons...most people - particularly
unbelievers think "three people."

But clearly God is NOT three people. God has revealed Himself to us
as Tri-Personal...and by saying this you mean 3 hypostases or 3 personas.
That was the purpose for choosing the word "persona" in the 4th Century
or perhaps earlier.... but God in Three Persons today DOES carry with it
the implications (to people who are not educated with an understanding
in theology) of "three people."

Notice that even your own use of "Tri-Personal" (which I thank you for)
is an attempt to stay away from the confusion of three separate people.

I agree with you and agree with your use and meaning of Tri-Personal.

We actually agree with each other far more than you perhaps realize...

 

[Breckmin]

"A Hebrew accusation of Tri-Theism would indeed be understandable. ANT Monotheism claims to say that "we don't know" if this is how God exists."

But that isn't true. YHWH has revealed Himself as Three Distinct Persons Whom we designate as 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit'. He has also revealed Himself to be both Eternal (Isa.44:6; 48:12; Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17). That means that there is no difference between the 'ontological' Trinity and the 'economic' Trinity. YHWH has revealed Himself as both Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal.

What appears to be missing here is that the Hebrew accusation is in
response to "the infinite co-naturality of three infinites" and what is
exactly meant by "three infinites" and their distinctions. If you would
like to explain the distinctions as you perceive them then please do so...

The ANT monotheist claims that God's atemporal ontological state has
been over-defined with Gregory's assertion.

"That means that there is no difference between the 'ontological' Trinity and the 'economic' Trinity. YHWH has revealed Himself as both Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal."

Perhaps I am failing to communicate to you the difference between
atemporal and eternal. There is no disagreement with the eternal
fellowship of the Trinity. There is absolutely no disagreement with
ANT Monotheism when you say He "has revealed Himself as both
Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal." There is 100% agreement
on this. Just as there is 100% agreement on "YHWH has revealed Himself
as Three Distinct Persons Whom we designate as 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit'. He has also revealed Himself to be both Eternal (Isa.44:6; 48:12; Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17)."

What needs to be clarified, however, is the difference between
defining ontological trinity beyond the temporal and seeing that God
has revealed Himself as Three Distinct Personas (Hypostases)Whom
we designate as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Breckmin]

No, we are dealing with the One Tri-Personal (not Mono-Personal) Divine Creator, YHWH. All that we can know about Him from an Eternal perspective is what He chooses to temporally reveal to us through the Divine Revelation that is Scripture.

You make this statement as though you have somehow disagreed with
the original assertion that "perhaps beyond the temporal - there is only
the Father." Your statement above is incongruous to the premises of
my statement.

IOW, there is no disagreement with your statement(s)..because you
statement is only dealing with the temporal. "Beyond the temporal" does
NOT equal "eternal." I think that the whole response of your post is
looking at "atemporal" as eternal or "from an Eternal perspective."
These are not opposed to each other because when I refer to the
atemporal state of God's existence I am referring to "timelessness"
and transcendent existence which is beyond the eternal consecutive
and linear timeline.

Pretty much everything in your post I agree with because your
response is incongruous to the objection made by ANT monotheism.
ANT monotheism is NOT claiming "Mono-Personal vs Tri-Personal."
You need to understand that these words "personal" or "persona"
were created by men to designate "distinction" and that they are
clearly imperfect when you dissect them scientifically or even
ontologically. Clearly my use of the English phrase "only the Father"
is imperfect because I am NOT saying that the Holy Spirit or the Son
were "created" at any point in time. I would agree with the imperfect
term "begotten" as long as it was understood that personas and
hypostases are perceived in the temporal - as is the concept of
the Father...BUT

and here is th big BUT...
they (These Three) *may* not be congruent in our understanding as
equivocal concepts related to distinctions...

IOW, Two of the Distinctions *may* be different than One of the
Distinctions because we exist in the temporal and can NOT see
beyond finite perspective. This does NOT question the "eternal
fellowship of the Trinity." If this is your conclusion then you are
missing what I am addressing with regard to finite perspective
and atemporal existence.

 

[Breckmin]

Godhead is an English word. It is no where in the koine Greek. It is acceptable,
but I believe we can do better in the English to explain this concept.

Three persons in the Godhead is acceptable when you understand that it is
referring to the Three Distinct Personas of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being
the One Eternal God.

BUT

It carries with it the connotation to the layman of three people in one tri-pluralistic
state of oneness which is why you get reactions like Oneness and Modalism because
they KNOW that God is clearly One and not three gods. (not saying the doctrines
of the Trinity are three gods).

Let's help them NOT see three gods by polishing our terminology to better accompany
Monotheism.

There is nothing wrong with staying away from confusing terms such as "persons" and "Godhead" in order to remove connotations of plurality.

 

[Breckmin]

"The argument is made that we "can not know" the ontological state of God's infinite existence beyond the temporal, because perhaps at this point (any finite existence)(sic) we are dealing with the Father which can
not be known."

No, we are dealing with the One Tri-Personal (not Mono-Personal) Divine Creator, YHWH.

There is no "Mono-Personal" limitation here....because beyond the
temporal there is no NEED for distinction if this is true. God is still Tri-
Personal as Divine Creator and I do not know if you are seeing the
circular logic going on here with the word that was chosen to make
such "distinction." When you make the accusation of "mono-Personal"
you are forgetting that persona was created to make the distinction
we see in the temporal. (this does not mean temporary and this does
NOT mean that God is not Eternally Tri-Personal).

What you are missing is that it is possible that beyond the temporal
that the word "person" would not even apply other than to acknowedge
qualities of personality and characteristics (etc.).

Saying "One Tri-Personal Divine Creator" is a statement that an
ANT monotheist would absolutely agree with....because you have
chosen the English word "person" to make the distinctions....so it is
difficult to disagree when you impute "person" to God the Father equally
as with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

All that we can know about Him from an Eternal perspective is what He chooses to temporally reveal to us through the Divine Revelation that is Scripture.

So since scripture is not ontologically clear as to the "exact" and
meticulous details of the Tri-Personal Creator - *perhaps* it is logical
not to define God beyond the time/space contiuum which we exist
in.....particularly with a temporal limitation.

That is the whole point of ANT monotheism.

 

[Breckmin]

No. There is no distinction between the 'ontological' and the 'economic' Trinity.

Clearly there IS a distinction in theology regarding "Who God is"
and His state of being...and "what God does" as being active in the
temporal creation (which I am referring to consecutive and linear
timeline and NOT just "temporary creation" which will be destroyed).

The ANT monotheists agrees with the classic Trinitarian on the roles
of the Tri-Personal God. There is no reason to disagree.

The position agrees with the belief structure of being co-eternal
as Tri-Personal Creator.

Where it "questions" (and this is not direct disagreement) the
understanding of the Trinity is in regards to what is "beyond
all finite existence." Here is where the position says "wait a
minute....why do distinctions have to exist here?" It is a position
that questions...not a position that defines.

The Three Persons Who are the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator are NOT simply temporal manifestations of an essentially Mono-Personal non-corporeal Entity (i.e. Sabellianism/Modalism).

This is NOT the position of ANT monotheism. The misunderstanding
of Mono-Personal is connected to your understanding of making the
"distinction" of the Father as a persona. The "Three Persons Who are
One Eternal Tri-Personal Divine Creator" is completely acceptable
with the understanding of distinction being made from hypostasis
and persona.

Perhaps you do not understand the usage of Personal Manifestation
as being differentiated from manifestation. Personal Manifestation
equals persona or hypostasis in the context of this discussion...BUT

and here is the important part of questioning...

Perhaps the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not
equal *in understanding.* That does not mean that they are
not co-eternal or co-equal as God or what ever else someone is
going to nitpick at this imperfection with... I am referring to the
inability to intellectualize "one" word to apply to all Three equally.

It is the "word" persona and hypostasis that is being questioned
here...NOT whether or not the Son is equally God...or the Holy
Spirit is equally God. What is being questioned is "labelling."

IF the Father...and once again we are referring to the understanding
of God's ontological state beyond the limitations of finite existence
"before" (imperfect in the English) creation or finite existence...
is actually NOT the same distinction as to be categorized along
with the Son and the Holy Spirit as a hypostasis or a persona
because these human words should NOT apply equally to all Three
distinctions of God.... THEN we may 'use' the word Tri-Personal
in an imperfect way to explain the same thing...but we still may
be in error as to the Father's Oneness distinct from that of the
Son and the Holy Spirit and the way in which we perceive
ontological trinity from our experience with economic trinity.

This is not Mono-Personal with the Father because "persona"
may be a false application all together.

 

[Breckmin]

"Likewise, with the Holy Spirit of God, clearly the Holy Spirit is a Personal Manifestation of God also, but "is this because of the temporal?" "

When I say "temporal" here I am not saying "temporary." I am using
the third definition or meaning of the word as to discribe an eternal
linear consecutive duration in its state of existence rather than its
primary meaning. So I could re-state this "Clearly the Holy Spirit is
a persona of God but "is this because of existence itself?" but what
I am referring to is the idea of the Holy Spirit being "begotten" from
the Father rather than some "change" in manifestation.

No. (Mal.3:6). Immutability is an essential component of Absolute Reality (i.e. God) of which there can be only one.

Define immutability. Clearly you are going to run into problems when
you address the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union...we all do.

If you employ a strict meaning for immutability you will take away
God's ability to have relationships and fellowship as well as even
make decisions or have emotions. You have to be careful how
you navigate with immutability.

I am merely referring to the Holy Spirit being "begotten" from the
Father as a possibility of spiritual existence...and the Father being
beyond our understanding of spiritual existence.

Using a verse like John 4:24 to extrapolate beyond the text
is also incongruous because it says "pneuma ho theos." It doesn't
say that the "patEr"(patri) is limited to the "pneuma." And clearly
the context is "proskunountas" and our worshipping of the Father
in the spirit...Jesus was NOT defining the Father's ontological
existence as merely an infinite pneuma in this verse.

 

[Breckmin]

"Is spiritual existence itself because of the "temporal?" Does the Holy Spirit of God, for instance, have an identical personality as God the Father?"

The Third Person, as the Holy Spirit of God, is also the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit of the Son (since the Father [First Person] and the Son [Second Person] are also Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH).

This is completely consistent with ANT monotheism.

This is demonstrated by the fact that it was the Holy Spirit Who overshadowed Mary and caused her to give birth to the Messiah even though the Messiah is always said to be the Son of the Father rather than the Son of the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:35) and it was the Holy Spirit who fulfilled the Messiah's promise to His disciples that He (and not another) would be with them always even to the very end of the age (Matt.28:20(b); Jn.16:5-15; Acts.2).

All completely consistent with spiritual existence being part of the
eternally temporal...

When I use the word "temporal" as opposed to "atemporal" - think
finite existence...or perhaps it would be better to think "existence itself"
since this is pretty much what I am referring to....but this doesn't mean
that the Father does not exist. This is an eternal state of spiritual
existence I'm referring to....but it is still identified as finite spiritual existence.
Now, that doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can not be infinite...that is
NOT the assertion. The question is regarding necessity and actuality
NOT potentially. This strikes to the heart of economic trinity and how
God will eternally interact with us...(eternal temporal state of eternal
time with finite existence)

 

[Breckmin]

Spiritual Existence itself cannot be 'economic' in nature otherwise it would be the Creation rather than YHWH that is Absolute Reality.

God's role and what He does is economic in nature with us...the Trinity's
role and what each persona "does" is not Creation rather than Absolute
Reality.

No one is disputing Absolute Reality. No one is saying spiritual existence
is the same thing as creation. There is a difference between creation itself
and things that are the "result of" creation...or a necessary inter-action.
Spiritual existence being effectual because of creation of spiritual beings
OR spiritual existence being "begotten" from the Father is merely the thing
that is being "questioned." There is no declared ontology or defined existence.

IOW, being the "result of" the temporal (finite existence which is eternal)
or being a temporal persona that is begotten is NOT the same thing as
a Creation.

We don't know enough about the spirit world as to define ontological
Holy Spirit in a meticulous or detailed way. We DO know that the Holy
Spirit is the Spirit of God. We can say that He is a distinct persona of
the Eternal Tri-Personal God. This is where the ANT monotheist and
the classic Trinitarian would agree... It is the ANT monotheist who
claims "we can not know" the exact spiritual science of the Person
of the Holy Spirit.

YHWH has declared Himself, not His Creation, to be Absolute Reality and essentially Spirit (Jn.4:24).

I dealt with John 4:24 in post # 14. You are missing the agnostical
aspect here - as to NOT define the Father as being limited to spiritual
existence or to being an infinite spirit. Perhaps He IS an infinite Spirit.

Claiming to "NOT know" is just one side note as to the ANT monotheist
position.

 

[Breckmin]

"...but what do we really know about the Holy Spirit's personality as being different from the Father's? How can we know?"

Who says that they are different?

We DO say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct personas
in the Tri-Personal Godhead. To quibble over distinct and different here
is some what meaningless...but I want to address roles. IF the Holy
Spirit is the Spirit of the Father because the Father is neither physical
nor limited to the spiritual then the idea of "personality" gets muffled.

Once again, however, if you take issue with the "spiritual existence"
aspect of this..you are forgetting that there is NO ANT monotheist
position here. The ANT monotheist claims not to know the details
of spiritual existence.

We know from the Athanasian Creed that the First Person is the 'Ordinate' Person of the Tri-Personal Entity, that the Second Person is both Eternally and Immutably begotten of the First Person and that the Third Person Eternally and Immutably proceeds from both the First and the Second Person (which is how we know that there is only one 'Father', only one 'Son' and only one 'Holy Spirit' rather than any other combinations of the Three Persons).

Completely consistent with ANT Monotheism.

The Scriptures are clear that in Eternity (i.e. 'in the Begining') the Word is both with God and is God (Jn.1:1) and therefore is also Personal rather than abstract principle or concept.

Not sure how you are applying "Logos" here. We seem to be saying
the same thing.

I know I am questioning how we know the details.

 

[Breckmin]

"The position of ANT Monotheism is not to isolate on "one spirit" as does Oneness, or claim the One Spirit must be the Spirit of Christ... ANT Monotheism actually focuses the existence of Deity as "flowing" from
(Edit: Or being begotten from) the Father... in that the Father may not be a Manifestation at all, but rather the Son and the Holy Spirit are two temporal Personal manifestations and are a response of finite existence (creation) and are "manifested" (clearly Personal Manifestations or Personas/hypostasis) from the Father."

Bold added for an attempt at more clarification.

Then, when the Son declared Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last (Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) He was clearly lying?!

No. I apologize to you for my use of the word "temporal" as it relates
to the experience of duration or time rather than being synonymous
with something temporary. When I say 'temporal' I am referring to
finite existence which is not timeless or transcendent. IOW, not
omnipresent in all of time beyond the limitations of such duration. The
Son is clearly the same God as God the Father, the Alpha and Omega,
the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last and the "Eternal Tri-
Personal Triune God" will exist for all of eternity. What is being
questioned here is the defined state of persona or hypostasis as it
relates to our perception and whether or not God the Father is above
both spiritual and physical existence. *If* the Father has manifested
Himself to us in the spiritual dimension or "IF" He has given finite personal
manifestations of Himself in the O.T. times (Moses, the garden of Eden),
then perhaps this finite manifestion is a reference to God the Son? ANT
monotheism has NO position! It is to rather question "What does God
the Son, or Son of God really mean?" If the Father is infinite and He
makes a finite (what I refer to as temporal) appearance...could this be
what is referred to as the Lord? It is a question of possibility NOT
dogma on defining eternal Sonship. Clearly, in this case - Jesus is
ONE with the Father and is the Alpha and the Omega. This doesn't
mean He is the Father... it is only questioning whether He is the essence
of a "distinct Personal Manifestation of the Father" OR a hypostasis or
persona that is begotten from the Father which is ONE with Him.

The ANT monotheist claims "not to know" Ontological Incarnation and
Ontological Trinity to this detail. What is questioned is Monotheism
outside of the temporal (all finite existence or time/space contiuum).

IF you personally believe that "time" itself is created...or that 3 dimensional
spatial existence is somehow "created" THEN this position is a position
you will logically reject. But if you know that mathematics teaches us
that both time and 3 dimensional spatial existence (not finite quantum
space)are both clearly infinite... and when finite existence is brought
into existence it becomes encompassed into God's Infinite Domain where
finite existence makes time and space effectual...THEN you will begin
to understand why I assert a Monotheism where the Trinity is possibly
the result of the temporal (eternal finite existence and experience)NOT
a creation of it.

If you believe time is somehow created rather than becoming effectual
when something finite comes to being, THEN you will probably conclude
that I am asserting the "creation" of the Trinity as well - rather than
a begotten Personal Manifestations or personas/hypostasis. ANT monotheism
claims to NOT know.

 

[Breckmin]

If the Word is God (Jn.1:1) then the Word is both Eternal and Immutable (i.e. absolutely ontological rather than 'economic') otherwise He is not essentially God but only a temporal 'economic' manifestation of God that can be 'here today, gone tomorrow' (Heb.13:8)?!

Clearly there was a question with regards to your understanding of
my use of the word temporal as it relates to eternal Tri-Personal
Creator. That was my fault since I am using it loosely without
defining it in the context of this discussion.

Furthermore the Messiah would no longer be 'Emmanuel' - 'God with us' (Matt.1:23) since He would only be a mere 'temporal manifestation' of God rather than God Himself?!

Here we are using the English word "God" as to not differentiate between
God the Father and God the Son/the Son of God. Jesus is the Man that
God became. He is 100% God and 100% Man. Jesus IS clearly Emmanuel
and He glorified His Father well. Jesus is the same God as God the Father.
Jesus is the only begotten from God (possibly God the Father). This does
NOT mean that Jesus is the Father. No man can be the Father. What it
means is that "God became a Man...in as much as He would become a
Man" - and we don't know 'how much' that is - as to quantify it.

The idea that God is essentially Mono-Personal but who temporally manifests Himself as multi-Personal is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism.

Not Mono-Personal...because the distinction of "personal" or "persona"
would not need to apply if there is only the Father beyond the time/
space contiuum of temporal existence which is progressive. ANT monotheism
has no contrary position but rather proposes "possibilities" for
understanding.

This is the difference in NOT over-defining. There is no "temporally
manifests Himself as multi-Personal" so this is a misunderstanding of
the position of ANT monotheism. ANT monotheism is opposed to Oneness
and Sabellianism as is the classic trinitarian.

 

[Breckmin]

"The Father is the very Ordinate of God's Existence outside of the temporal, perhaps (the position claims to not be able to know), and the Son is the Personal Manifestation of Sonship and finite expression which comes from (edit: or is begotten of) the Father."

Again, this would mean that the Son, in declaring Himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last (Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13), was lying?!

No. Jesus' Deity is quite in tact. He is the Man that God became. He
is the Only Man that God became. He is the Creator of all Creation.
You are thinking that Jesus is having some sort of a beginning here,
rather than seeing the imperfection of using the concept of "before"
creation as it relates to existence that is transcendent -beyond the temporal.

Jesus is everything He claimed to be and more. Because He is God in
human flesh...He is the Perfect and Holy Sacrifice for sin... Everything
is the same as trinitarian doctrine except that ANT monotheism proposes
possibilities regarding our understanding of the meanings of the concepts
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit rather than isolating or focusing on such
distinctions. Clearly, the distinctions are there..... and there is a 100%
agreement to make distinctions...

The question is whether or not the Father is a state of existence that
is beyond both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Be careful here...I did NOT
say "existence that is different." I am not saying that the Son and the
Holy Spirit are NOT the same God as God the Father. They ARE the One
Eternal God.

ANT monotheism claims NO position...it merely asserts the possibility
that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are begotten from the Father
into perceptual/finte/temporal (eternal) existence. This does NOT
mean that the Son is not a Person and that the Holy Spirit is not a
Person. No. The persona was created for the purposes of distinction.

To say this would be to totally misunderstand ANT monotheism.

"In this case, you have a monotheistic structure which is sort of like "One Ordinate" and two co-existing personal manifestations or two distinct hypostases or personas which flow from the One God." - This is
possibility - NOT a position of absolute assertion.

No. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not mere 'economic' manifestations of an ontologically Mono-Personal God. They are the Second and Third Persons of an ontologically Tri-Personal God Who Exists as both Eternal and Immutable.

Clearly they are NOT just manifestations of a Mono-Personal God...that
would be modalism. The are the Second and Third Personas (Hypostases)
of the Eternal Tri-Personal God Who is Eternal and "Immutable" within all
practical tecnicality.

Please define "immutable" within the context of not changing, however.

You will run into many problems both biblically and systematically.

The problem is with the hyper-technical English word...not the concept.

I agree with you on the concept...but I am agnostical as to God's
Triune state of existence "before" (also imperfect in the English) there
was any finite existence or temporal eternal existence or created state
of finite existence or any existence other than God Himself.