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

[Simonline]

Begotten Personal Manifestations do not equal created nor modes

Firstly, the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH is not simply a 'manifestation' relative to the One being manifest. He IS the One being manifest. The Second Person is Eternally begotten of the First Person but both Persons, along with the Third Person, are the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH.

Secondly, the Incarnation is about the Divine Creator simultaneously Existing both as the Divine Creator and as a human creature. Therefore, by definition, the Messiah simultaneously Exists both as Divine Creator and human creature. Therefore your title for this post is incorrect.

"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

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...

That is only an issue for mono-personal entities such as angels or humans. It is not at all an issue for the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH. Even though He Exists as a single Entity, since that single Entity Exists as Tri-Personal rather than Mono-Personal it can never be said that YHWH, as Tri-Personal, is 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.

With respect, I don't believe that we have been 'drifting off into semantics'. When discussing metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc. it is absolutely imperative that we both correctly define and correctly articulate exactly what it is that we mean. One who cannot do precision cannot do theology. As the late bishop J.C.Ryle once said 'Imprecise definition is the essence of religious cotroversy'

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

My pleasure.

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.

Again, I don't believe that the problem is 'over-defining' au contrare, I believe that the problem is more often than not incorrect definition/ insufficient precision.

If God is both Eternal (i.e. atemporal) and Immutable then how can He NOT Exist as the One, Infinite, Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator?!...or do you think that God, relative to His Creation, somehow 'changed' His Nature?!

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

Of course. YHWH is both Eternal and Immutable both with and without reference to His Creation (i.e. both absolutely and relatively).

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.

You're not making sense here? What is what is addressed...?

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.

Sorry, but I don't buy into this relativistic nonsense. I am correcting this theology in accordance with the Divine Revelation that is Scripture. Every word that I write is not in agreement with it at all otherwise I would not need to keep correcting it by having to more precisely re-define it to make it more Scripturally consistent.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I see that, in your absence, you have been quite busy...?!

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?

There is no trap. YHWH is a single entity Who Exists as Tri-Personal, not Mono-Personal. Since God is a single Entity then, by definition, there can be only one Entity that Exists as Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Omni-Everything etc. To assert that God, as Tri-Personal, actually Exists as Three Infinities is an ontological absurdity since there can be only One Absolute Reality, thus only One Infinity, One Almighty, One Sovereign, One LORD etc. as the Athanasian creed declares.

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.

I think that it would be more correct to say that we don't know because God has not (yet) revealed to us (who knows what more He might reveal to us at some future point?) which is not the same as saying that we can't know in the absolute sense irrespective of whether or not God chooses to reveal more to us at some future point?

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

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.

I understand from where you're coming but I strongly disagree with your conclusion. The bottom line is that humans are made in the likeness of their Creator (Gen.1:26-27) and NOT vice versa. It is the Divine Creator YHWH Who is the origin of what it means to exist as a person and NOT his human creatures and we must NOT under any circumstances concede this point to a Godless society (even if it means rubbing their noses in it). We exist as persons because (and ONLY because) God first Exists as Persons. I take no prisoners on this point. I will NOT allow people to re-define the Creator in their own mono-personal likeness.

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.

Absolutely not. What I mean is Three Persons. The concept of God existing as Three 'Persona' (i.e. Three 'masks') evokes the heresy of Sabellianism/Modalism. God is NOT a Mono-Personal Entity Who 'economically' alternates between 'persona' ('masks') for the benefit of His creatures?!

That was the purpose for creating 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."

Actually, the 'persona' was a mask worn by ancient Greek actors (amongst others) for the purpose of playing the role of a character different to that of themselves. The 'persona' or mask could be changed according to the nature of the character being played by the actor at any given time.

It is important that we start with the Infinite Creator and work forwards down to the human creature that is made in the finite likeness of the Infinite Creator and not start with the finite creature and then try and work backwards up to the Infinite Creator otherwise we project our finite mono-personality back onto the Infinite and Tri-Personal Divine Creator.

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.

Not really. It is an attempt to avoid the often incorrect conceptual baggage that goes with the term Trinitarian (to change peoples' thinking from 'three finite [human?] Persons who came together to form the infinite (though finitely tri-theistic)Trinity'(?!) to 'a single Infinite Entity Who, as both Eternal and Immutable, ALWAYS Exists as Tri-Personal').

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...

Hmm...I don't think so.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

"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 is fundamentally untrue. We DO know how God Exists precisely because He has revealed Himself to Exist as both Eternal and Immutable. Therefore, on that basis, once we know, on the basis of God's revelation of Himself through Scripture, how God Exists at any given point then we know how God Exists at all points because He Exists as both Eternal and Immutable (though NOT static)?!

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...

I'm not sure exactly what Gregory meant by his statement 'the infinite co-naturality of three infinities' but whatever he meant, what he has said is a contradiction of the Athanasian Creed that explicitly declares that God does not Exist as 'Three Infinities' (a metaphysical and ontological contradiction in terms). Although God can and does Exist as Tri-Personal He Existing as a single Entity can only Exist as a single Infinity (i.e. Absolute Reality).

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

But my point is that God's atemporal (i.e. Eternal) state is also Immutable so, by definition, it must be the same both ontologically and economically otherwise in what sense is it Immutable?

"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.

Now you're playing at semantics?! Explain the difference between 'Eternal' and 'beyond the temporal' since they both mean the same thing i.e. Existence beyond/without Time (as distinct from finite existence which is existence within Time (and Space))?

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

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.

Not 'somehow', totally. I completely disagree with your 'suggestion' that ontologically YHWH Exists as Mono-Personal whilst economically YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal?! That is a fundamental denial of His revelation that He Exists as Immutable.

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."

So you keep saying but you have yet to explain the difference between the two?

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.

And therein lies your error. Eternity is NOT endless time. Endless time is 'forever', not Eternity. Eternity is the total absence of Time, linear or otherwise. Finite creatures are not, nor will they ever be, capable of Eternal Existence since we, as finite creatures, cannot exist beyond either Time or Space (because these define our existence as finite creatures).

If God Exists as Eternal according to your definition of Eternal (i.e. endless linear time) then the Divine Creator is as trapped within the boundaries of Time and Space as the rest of us in which case He ceases to be the Divine Creator and becomes just the largest finite creature...such an understanding is both heretical and idolatrous?!

Pretty much everything in your post I agree with because your response is incongruous to the objection made by ANT monotheism.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Please explain?

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.

But that is true of all finite human language (including Hebrew and Greek).

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.

Exactly what do you mean by this statement (why have you put 'created' in brackets)?

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...

Why do you consider the term 'begotten' to be imperfect?

Perceived by whom? What about the Three Persons' infinite and exhaustive (not to mention Eternal) perceptions of each other which are not temporal?

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

Meaning?

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.

There is nothing in Scripture that would lead us to believe that that is the case?

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.

I don't think so. You seem to be saying that ultimately we have no way of knowing whether or not YHWH Exists both Eternally and Immutably as Three distinct Persons even though that is exactly what He has declared about Himself?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

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.

I definitely prefer the term Person/Persons to the term persona (i.e. changable 'mask').

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).

Tri-pluralistic state of oneness?! That is just unintelligable nonsense? The people must be educated to understand that God is not a triumvirate of three finite persons. He Exists as a single Infinite Tri-Personal Entity.

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

Lets expound and teach the truth in strict accordance with the Divine Revelation that is Scripture, then we avoid re-defining the Creator in our own likeness?

I don't have a problem with Monotheism. My problem is with anything that tries to make out that God Exists essentially as Mono-Personal rather than Tri-Personal and only manifests Himself as Tri-Personal for the sake of His Creation?!

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

I completely disagree. The One God Exists as a plurality of Persons - Three Persons to be precise - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - He Exists as Tri-Personal not Mono-Personal. We need to stick to the script, stick to the Scriptures and not try to go one better than God Himself?!

Simonline.

 

[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.

Perhaps you are unaware that Gregory of Nazianzus' statement was
to Constantinople in the Fourth Century (379?/380?) and the Athanasian
Creed was probably Fifth Century....even if Fourth Century it would be
the Athanasian Creed that was contradicting axioms regarding the
Trinity in Constantinople. The fact is, from the RCC's perspective
there IS NO contradiction. This assertion of "the infinite co-naturality
of three infinites" is clearly in Catholic Catechism (and the catechumens
of Costantinople) as well as the Athanasian Creed. Check out #256 and
#266.

You are claiming that Catholic Catechism is self-contradictory...not me.

 

[Breckmin]

This stance is very dangerous in reducing God to mere economics. God has not revealed Himself to us solely from an economic perspective..

No one is saying that because you agree with classic trinitarians on the
roles of the Persons of the Trinity (and please no more ridiculous
nitpicking...there is agreement here) that you are "reducing God to mere
economics." Clearly defining God ontologically from a finite perception
through divine revelation and defining God's ontological state in an atemporal
state are two different things...but you do not appear to understand
what I am referring to.

I am NOT referring to an "eternal" state in which we KNOW that the
Three Persons of the Godhead are co-eternal and One in ousia.

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,

Total agreement with ANT monotheism.

that does not mean that we cannot know God at all..

Total agreement with ANT monotheism.

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.

Total agreement with ANT monotheism.

but even now we know enough to know that God is not ontologically Mono-Personal with multiple 'economic' manifestations of Himself?!

Still total agreement with ANT monotheism because ANT monotheism
recognizes that the term "person" or the Latin "persona" was used
to make the distinction. It would be ridiculous to call God Mono-Personal
with this understanding of the language. Even if you said "possibly
Mono-Ordinate with Bi-Personal co-eternal existence it would STILL be
incongruous with the meaning of words...that is why Tri-Personal is
completely acceptable.

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))?!

No. Even Oneness doesn't believe this. You are "isolating" on manifestation
and NOT connecting it to "Personal" in a connected premises which
can NOT be separated. That is why I explained that you should not
nitpick at the meaning of "Personal Manifestation." It does NOT mean
a mere manifestation in the way in which I am using it. It is a connected
meaning which CAN NOT be separated from personae.

 

[Breckmin]

<<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. .

Person was used to make the distinctions....so of course we would
say God is eternally Tri-Personal. The context of my statement is
NOT "personal."

Notice that you used scripture for the part that is regarding God being
One...but then you do NOT use scripture for the second part of the
sentence. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are throughout the N.T.
and I agree with the distinctions...but these are seen in finite existence
NOT atemporal timeless existence outside the realm of our ability to
define God in this type of ontological state "before" (imperfect in the
English) there was any non-equalibrium or matter or finite existence
to have a effectual state of interaction with Creation.

Clearly, the ETERNAL Trinity has always existed in the Omniscient
mind of the Father so much of this discussion is superfluous regarding
being agnostic...

Clearly, you do not appear to understand what I am referring to when
I talk about not defining ontological trinity in an atemporal state. I also
am not disagreeing with the assertion to do so...I am saying that we
do not need to construct an illogical assertion for the atemporal state
WHEN WE DO NOT KNOW.

 

[Breckmin]

<<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

If you define the Father as an equal distinction THEN there is NO disagreement here.

You seem to be missing the circular use of the word "person" here
that you are trapped in...and not seeing the agnostical approach of
the ANT monotheist to NOT disagree with you...but question whether
or not the Father should be seen as an equal distinction within the
context of same exact meaning. There is NO disagreement with
the Athanasian Creed and wording on this...even the Athanasian
Creed acknowledges that the Son is begotten of the Father, etc.

but Jesus of Nazareth is the human incarnation of the Son and as such is human, not Divine.

Someone could come along and say "you are saying that Jesus
is "not Divine." They could accuse you of what Nestorius was
guilty of.

I'm not saying anything here...because I know what you meant..
but I'm trying to show you how ridiculous the nitpicking is here
on your part.

 

[Breckmin]

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

No.

But this is dynamically equivalent to saying that God the Son, the Second
Person of the Trinity, became Jesus. It is ridiculous to disagree.

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.

I could divert here to a discussion on substantiating the difference
between natures and claiming they are one - but must be distinguished..
BUT since I agree with you I will refrain from nitpicking and forcing you
into a discussion on "distinguished but not separated." I can use the
same words and know what you mean and agree with you...but there
is a trap when you take meanings to their logical ends...I don't know
if you see this with regards to distinctions of 100% Man and 100%
God and the Hypostatic Union.... Since I agree with it...I won't
nitpick (like I feel you have been doing).

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

In citing the verse I was referring to you seem to forget the first
part of it... "for a child will be born to us... A Son will be given.."

It is the Child born that is called "Everlasting Father." That raises
a QUESTION...NOT an assertion..when it comes to ANT monotheism.

Just another reason not to define Triunity in the atemporal state
of existence.. Clearly..the agreement is with the Co-eternal
Tri-Personal God you are asserting...based on YOUR usage of the
word "Person" as it relates to the Father.

 

[Breckmin]

"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.

Where has this argument been thrashed out??? Where has the difference
between atemporal and co-eternal even been addressed??? Please be
specific. (we will have to change the acrostic from Neo)

This could be seen as an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy but I will
wait for your response.

"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.

This is now being reduced to mere polemics with no constructive analysis
nor understanding of assertions made by classic Trinitarians in biblical
theology. NO WHERE did I say "Mono-Personal." Trinitarians have often
explained that "He, the Father and He the Son, and He, the Holy Spirit
(although this gender aspect can be debated from the Greek) ALL Three
Equal the One God.


I have heard numerous Trinitarian Christian pastors say "the Three He's
equal the One God."


Now you wish to nitpick at this because it is coming from an ANT monotheist...
and you do not appear to understand how this position is still Trinitarian.

 

[Breckmin]

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.

No one has asserted Mono-Personal.

But let's dissect this for a second... How is the Second Person of the
Trinity "Immutable?" Please define Immutability for the sake of the
discussion.

Yes,
the Son IS indeed eternal as IS the Trinity or "One Tri-Personal God"
as you refer it the Creator. There is no disagreement with this point...
except to question the usage of the distinction "person" as it relates
to state of existences.

 

[Breckmin]

.

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

It is actually a distinction between ontological existence as "co-eternal"
and ontological existence that is "atemporal." That is where the distinction
is...and that is why ANT monotheism agrees with economic trinity.

ANT monotheism only "questions" atemporal existence...it does NOT
assert it.

This is what you are having trouble distinguishing.

"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(sic- Persons) 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)."

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

How do you know that God the Father is limited to spiritual existence itself? What is spiritual existence? Is God the Father an Infinite Spirit?
How do you know this apart from an extrapolation of John 4:24?

and you are left with the humanistic evolutionist's view that we brought ourselves into existence?!

Clearly you do not understand the point of being ontologically beyond
both physical and spiritual existence.

The assertion is NOT TO KNOW...it is NOT a disagreement.

Those who seriously believe this [Richard Dawkins et. al.] are desperately in need of incarceration within a lunatic asylum

Or in need of the Holy Spirit to open his eyes so he can see the love
of the Father and the Love of God the Son in becoming a Man and
dying in his place. We would all be like Dawkins if we were in his
circumstances and blinded by circular assumptions, possibilities
and pseudo inductions. We are no better. It is by the Grace of
God and the Grace of God alone that we too are not in need of
your assertion regarding Dawkins.

 

[Breckmin]

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

I can use the same verse, BTW. It doesn't address premises nor does
it address the logic in not asserting something contradictory.

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.

This is incongruous to what is being asserted...so your attempt to
reduce this to building a strawman of nonsense is additional polemics
without substance.

God IS Absolute Reality. No one disagrees with this. God IS Eternal
and Immutable (although I would like you to define how God the Son
is Immutable in this context).

Reducing God is a finite creature is a red herring of more vanity here.

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

So He was lying when He said He was the Alpha and Omega??? You need
to see what is going on here and how anyone reading could accuse you
of intellectual hypocricy as it relates to the Deity of our Lord. I will not
make such an accusation because I am going to give you the benefit of
the doubt that this a is huge issue in semantics and miscommunication
in the English language.

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

So you agree with Nestorius that God (the Son) did not die?

 

[Breckmin]

Firstly, the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH is not simply a 'manifestation' relative to the One being manifest.

Agreed 100&#37; (because you isolated on "manifestation" and disregarded
the connected premises of "begotten" and "personal").

He IS the One being manifest.

He is being what? "Manifest?" Perhaps He is eternally begotten as
ANT monotheism would assert....

The Second Person is Eternally begotten of the First Person but both Persons, along with the Third Person, are the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH.

Because of "your understanding" of Tri-Personal I agree with you...but
this does NOT mean that a Christian can not question the definition
and distinction of hypostasis as it relates to the Father as being perfectly
equal to the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit....

BUT...since you define the distinctions as Persons...THEN Tri-Personal
is completely acceptable and understandable.

 

[Breckmin]

Secondly, the Incarnation is about the Divine Creator simultaneously Existing both as the Divine Creator and as a human creature. Therefore, by definition, the Messiah simultaneously Exists both as Divine Creator and human creature. Therefore your title for this post is incorrect.

Just for your clarification. I was NOT referring to the Incarnation but
rather to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I was NOT defining
the Man that God became so "not created" is a correct meaning to
substantiate.

This title, now, is incorrect and sent premature...it should NOT read "equally"...it was going to read
"Begotten Personal Manifestations equaling Personas/hypostasis/personae rather than manifestions"

 

[Simonline]

[/color]

Perhaps you are unaware that Gregory of Nazianzus' statement was
to Constantinople in the Fourth Century (379?/380?) and the Athanasian
Creed was probably Fifth Century....even if Fourth Century it would be
the Athanasian Creed that was contradicting axioms regarding the
Trinity in Constantinople. The fact is, from the RCC's perspective
there IS NO contradiction. This assertion of "the infinite co-naturality
of three infinites" is clearly in Catholic Catechism (and the catechumens
of Costantinople) as well as the Athanasian Creed. Check out #256 and
#266.

You are claiming that Catholic Catechism is self-contradictory...not me.

I am not here either to attack or defend Roman Catholicism. I am here to affirm Biblical revelatory truth. As the Athanasian creed affirms and declares - God Exists as a single Infinity (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) not a conglomeration of three 'finite Infinities'(?!) i.e. Tri-theism which would be an absurd contradiction in terms.

Simonline.

 

[Breckmin]

God Exists as a single Infinity (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13)

Consistent with Oneness and Judaism.

not a conglomeration of three 'finite Infinities'(?!)

They do not use the word conglomeration. The Three considered together
as One...not just in unity..but the One in Three....existing as One
Monotheistic Creator.

i.e. Tri-theism which would be an absurd contradiction in terms.

This is why ANT monotheism asserts that we can not know if God
exists as the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Classic trinitarianism
claims the Anathasian Creed is consistent with this. You are basically
saying that Classic Trinitarian theology that agrees with St. Gregory's
assertion is Tri-theism.

 

[Breckmin]

That is only an issue for mono-personal entities such as angels or humans. It is not at all an issue for the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH. Even though He Exists as a single Entity, since that single Entity Exists as Tri-Personal rather than Mono-Personal it can never be said that YHWH, as Tri-Personal, is alone.

Define fellowship in this context. Please remember that I do NOT assert
a Mono-Personal Creator. I believe in an eternal fellowship of Three Persons (personas/hypostases/personae)or Personages. Where I question
Tri-Existence is in the atemporal state alone.

With respect, I don't believe that we have been 'drifting off into semantics'.

But you do not even say we can't know if St. Gregory's statement is
ontologically correct in an atemporal state of existence...you actually
DENY the statement and claim that it is Tri-Theism. You are more
anti-classic Trinitarian than I am by doing this...

The ANT monotheist has no problem with agreeing with the
Athanasian Creed because of the way in which it is worded

When discussing metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc. it is absolutely imperative that we both correctly define and correctly articulate exactly what it is that we mean.

I asked you not to nitpick at Begotten Personal Manifestations - particularly
on the last word of "manifestations" which can not be isolated....because
these meanings (collectively) are synonymous with personae. I understand
that my OP was somewhat sloppy and needed clarification...but all
positions involving the English language addressing atemporal concepts
independent of mathematics and physics are going to be challenging.

And even with mathematics and physics it is very challenging and can not be
fully comprehended.

One who cannot do precision cannot do theology. As the late bishop J.C.Ryle once said 'Imprecise definition is the essence of religious cotroversy'

And precision when there should be agnosticism on ontological details
has also been the essence of religious controversy.