Pages

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Trinitarianism

“Further, it too often seems to be the case that these models always appeal to some kind of apostasy and yet the church seemed to do an adequate job with issues much more sophisticated as with Christology and the Trinity. Therefore isn’t this an a forteriori reason for thinking that the church was reliable in ‘word of mouth’ teaching during the same period?”

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/the-naked-book/

Did the early church do an adequate job on these issues? Is there no room for improvement?

Certain aspects of so-called Nicene Orthodoxy haven’t gone unchallenged by some Reformed theologians, beginning with Calvin. Calvin initiated a corrective when he defended the autotheos of the Father, Son, and Spirit alike.

Some Reformed theologians have followed his lead and taken his seminal insights to their logical conclusion.

John Frame, The Doctrine of God, 707-19.

Paul Helm, Calvin’s Ideas, 41-57.

Benjamin Warfield, Works 5:189-284.

Traditional (i.e. patristic, scholastic) formulations of the Trinity tend to be prejudicial to the Spirit.

They begin with the Father. Indeed, they regard the Father as the fons deitas. He is the “first” person of the Trinity in a strong sense.

You then have the Father/Son relationship. Because fatherhood and sonship are correlative, the binary relationship seems to be fundamental.

Since, by contrast, “spirit” isn’t correlative, the Spirit seems to be tacked onto God. But that’s is a consequence of how patristic theology has framed the doctrine.

And that also gave rise to the famous controversy over the filioque. The Latin formulation is just a modification of the Greek formulation. It’s operating with the same framework.

Yet, in application to God, fatherhood and sonship are metaphors. Of course, they stand for something—something eternal.

But we still need to unpack the metaphors. For example, both fatherhood and sonship are multifaceted metaphors, and we need to determine, from Scripture, what elements are analogous or disanalogous with the divine nature.

In human affairs, as Scripture depicts it, underage sons are subordinate to their fathers. But adult sons are not (especially when they start a family of their own), although grown children retain a lifelong obligation to honor their parents.

Among other aspects of the paternal/filial metaphor which Scripture applies to the Father/Son relation, we have notions of mutual honor and affection, as well as hereditary authority.

Those are not distinctively divine traits, although the Trinity is the exemplar of the human exempla.

And, of course, the “Son of God” is a divine title in the NT. One might ask why that is. I suppose it plays on the natural inference that fathers and sons are two of a kind. That would dovetail with the notion of consubstantiality.

Metaphysically speaking, there is no “first,” “second,” or “third” person of the Trinity. We can retain that convention as a convenient way of denoting the persons, but it’s not as if the Trinity is actually structured in a numerical series.

Metaphysically speaking, there’s no reason to begin with the Father, or begin with the Father/Son relation, and then try to integrate a “third” person (the Spirit) into that binary relation.

The Father is no more primary than the Son or the Spirit. You could just as well begin with the Son and the Spirit, and then relate the Father to that twosome.

I think that patristic theology makes two or three related mistakes.

i) It’s concerned with preserving the unity of the Godhead. And that’s a valid concern.

But it treats the Father as the unifying principle. And it grounds the unity of the Trinity in the Father by treating the Father as the fountainhead of the deity. As Timothy Ware puts it, summarizing the Cappadocians, there is one God because there is one Father. The “monarchy” of the Father.

But that’s implicitly unitarian.

ii) It underwrites (i) by seizing on the wrong aspect of the paternal/filial metaphor. “Generation” is a sexual metaphor—a metaphor for sexual reproduction.

Of course, the church fathers don’t apply this literally to the Godhead. But they do focus on that aspect of the paternal/filial metaphor, and simply try to reapply it more abstractly to the Godhead. The Father is the source and origin of the Son. And they analogize from that to the Spirit.

Latin theology modifies this model by claiming that the Father is the source of person, but not the nature, of the Son and the Spirit. But it’s moving within the same framework. Both sides reify metaphors.

iii) It’s also a mistake to treat the names of the Trinitarian persons as if that were our only or primary source of information about them, and then erect a whole edifice atop that slender foundation. The names are significant, and they’re a source of information. But most of our information should come from what the Bible ascribes to God in general, and the persons in particular. Not just what it calls them, but the attributes and actions it ascribes to them.

For example, traditional theology treats “spiration” as a distinctive property of the Holy Spirit. Yet not only does this substitute a paraphrastic description for a genuine explanation, but I hardly think the Bible calls him a “spirit” because that’s his distinctive property. All three persons of the Godhead are spirits; what is more, there are creaturely spirits as well as divine spirits.

The early church did a pretty good job on the Trinity. But it also made some missteps along the way. Some midcourse corrections are in order.

The belief that the Father is alone autotheos and the fountainhead of Deity is based off of an ontological reading of several passages in John. However, those texts actually speak of Christ's Messianic investiture and the Spirit's coming at Pentecost (both economical, not ontological). Nicea was not infallible. In fact, I would say that this is clear proof that Nicea was not infallible.

Aside from Your obviously erroneous statements, the fact that You equate Sonship with motherhood (instead oif equating it -obviously!- with sonship), and the Spirit with sonship (as though it were He Who is called The Son) simply blew me off. Look, I'm sorry, but that's the most vivid display of brainlesness I've ever come across. (And it transcends denominational lines, so I'm not gonna go easy on You this time) :-<

Rho,

what's wrong with'ya son? After (positively) impressing me with Your orthodox Patristic knowledge of "The Biblical Trinity" and "the Image of the Father", now You blow it all in one shot!? :-\ I'm very disappointed. :-(

So much for the myth of "but at least we have the first 6/7 Synods in common": we don't have ANYTHING in common: the 7th approved the Icons You love to hate; the 6th condemned the Monergism You mindlessly cling to; the 4th called Marry the Mother of God, which makes Your skin crawl, and even with the 1st You find fault! And *YOU*`re the ones pointing fingers at DaVinci, huh? :-\

the fact that You equate Sonship with motherhood (instead oif equating it -obviously!- with sonship), and the Spirit with sonship (as though it were He Who is called The Son) simply blew me off. Look, I'm sorry, but that's the most vivid display of brainlesness I've ever come across.

Wrong. I associated Sonship within the Trinty and Femininity with the family with filiation, not motherhood. I realize you're Romanian, Lvka, but you may want to work on basic reading comprehension, particularly when you call somebody "brainless."

Try to follow along:

Father - paternitySon - filationSpirit - spiration

That's standard Trinitarianism.

I'm taking my analogy from the creation narrative:Eve, the first woman filiates with respect to Adam, for she is, literally, the branch (rib) taken from Him. According to the creation narrative, woman is derived from man. Mankind (male and female He created them) is created in the image of God. God is a Trinity, right?

The Son filiates with respect to the Father. If you disagree, you'd better tell all those theologians that write that in their books when discussing Nicene Christology. Tell you what, why don't you write Robert Reymond, just for starters, okay?

Children metaphorically spirate from both parents. The breathe them out, for they are the product of the sexual union, which is, itself, a physical and, I believe, spiritual union, for marriage and sex are sacred acts.

So, which better embodies the image of God as expressed in the creation of mankind? The Spirit spirating (proceeding) from the Father (single procession) or both Father and Son?

I believe in the concept of the sacramental universe, where God reveals Himself to us through visual metaphors. For example, the Tabernacle as a sacred space said a great deal about God, Christ, redemption, even the universe itself (Cf. The Temple and The Church's Mission, G.K. Beale, also The Shadow of Christ and the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress).

Likewise, I believe that mankind as a species, specifically the fundamental family unit - father, mother, child is a visual metaphor for the image of God, including the Trinity.

No, it condemned monotheletism. The assertion that it condemned monergism is a conclusion that your side of the aisle draws, generally without benefit of argument. That's what you get for getting your arguments from Perry. But, hey, if you think you can sustain that argument, by all means do try.

Women aren't born from men; rather children are begotten by them. Eve was taken from Adam's side. Eve means Life and the Holy Spirit is the Lord, Giver of Life, as we say in the Nicene Creed. Nor are children breathed from their parents. (And who told You that spiration is double?).

Yes, I'm a Romanian, and my ancestors come from Rome, and our language is a Roamnce language. Filiation, dear friend, comes from the Latin "Filius", meaning Son ("Fiu", in Romanian). If You can't get it through Your head that men do not enter into labor, less so give birth to women, and that filiation means sonship, and that parents don't breathe their children, then You're beyond any [psychological] help. Sorry. Try some therapy. (I mean, I believed children were brought by the stork when I was little, but You just take stupidity to the next level).

As for "the 6th Coucil condemned monothellism, not monoenergism", try tell that to someone that might actually believe You, like Your mother, for instance, which was born from Your father when he got into labor, and then they both begat You by way of breathing and respiration.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot believe that we're even having this conversation in the first place. LORD HAVE MERCY !!! :-O :-C

Can you quote me saying that? No. I said woman, in the creation narrative, was derived from man:

Filiation, definitions:

1. the kinship relation between an individual and the individual's progenitors

2. inherited properties shared with others of your bloodline

3. aThe act or fact of forming a new branch, as of a society or language group.b. The branch thus formed.

4. A line of descent; derivation.

It's a pity you can't represent what others say or follow an argument correctly, Lvka.

rather children are begotten by them.

I didn't say otherwise, did I? No.

Eve was taken from Adam's side.

Yep, and thereby derived from him.

Eve means Life

Eve was not named in the text until after the Fall. Adam named her Eve in consequence of the hope of redemption contained in the protoevangelion.

and the Holy Spirit is the Lord, Giver of Life, as we say in the Nicene Creed.

So, according to your own logic, you're equating Eve and Spirit, spiration with motherhood. Good job.

Nor are children breathed from their parents.

Notice how Lvka, yet again, glosses over the supporting argument I gave for that move.

(And who told You that spiration is double?).

I hardly need to reinvent that exegetical wheel. Consult a standard systematic theology.

Filiation, dear friend, comes from the Latin "Filius", meaning Son ("Fiu", in Romanian).

You're now committing the word-concept fallacy by defining a concept by the entymology of a word. Try again.

If You can't get it through Your head that men do not enter into labor,

I never said they did. My analogy comes from the creation narrative.

less so give birth to women,

I never said so.

and that filiation means sonship,

I'm drawing an analogy between the filation of woman to man (where female, specifically Eve, is derived from man, Adam) in the creation narrative and the Trinitarian relations, that's it.

And I'm a bit surprised that you can't follow it, since you're the one who like allegorical exegesis so much.

and that parents don't breathe their children,

Once more, I gave an argument for that move. I'm using analogical, not literal language.

then You're beyond any [psychological] help. Sorry. Try some therapy. (I mean, I believed children were brought by the stork when I was little, but You just take stupidity to the next level).

Ad homineum invective in lieu of an argument. Good job.

As for "the 6th Coucil condemned monothellism, not monoenergism",

Notice that Lvka misquotes me. I said it condemned monothelitism. I did not deny it condemned monoenergism. I said that on purpose, for it takes a supporting argument to get from monoenergism to monergism, but Lvka hasn't provided it.

Lvka is merely begging the question without supporting argument. Again, that's what you get for getting your pat answers from Perry. If you want to level that historical argument, you'll need to actually provide a supporting theological and exegetical argument. Good luck with that, Lvka.

Again, if You can't get through Your sophisticated little head that filius means son and filiation means sonship, then I can't help You out here. Pure, plain, and simple. :-\

And -again- if You truly can't understand the way little children are first begotten and then born, but expect me to quote entire encyclopedias to prove such obvious, simple, well-known, every-day truths, then You *ARE* beyond any help.

I also had no idea that one has to actually become Orthodox in order to know that mommys and daddys don't make little children by way of breathing or respiration, and that men don't enter into labor in order to give birth to their wives.(Chinese and Indians are the most prodigious people at it, and they sure aren't Orthdox; they're anything but that, actually). :-/

By the way, it isn't as if seeing Christ, the Son, in feminine terms is a-Scriptural, given what Proverbs says about Wisdom crying in the streets - a feminine image.

And notice that Paul draws an analogy between Christ as a husband and the Church as a wife.

So, I'm hardly drawing analogies that are out of step with the way Scripture draws them - and wasn't Lvka just a few threads back castigating us here for not interpreting Scripture the way the authors of Scripture interpret it, in his case allegorically? So, why now his sudden change of heart?

So, why is it such a stretch to draw an analogy between the Father, Son, and Spirit, and Man as Husband/father, Woman as wife/mother and child as child?

This merely begs the question for single procession. Lvka should just lay his cards on the table. The problem isn't my analogy, it's his aprioristic views. It took how many posts to expose that?

But let's examine his analogy, using his literal mindset.

Eve was named after the Fall, as a consequence of sin, a fact Lvka overlooks. The life she gives is to fallen persons, born in the image of Adam.

So, if we follow Lvka's analogy, Eve, who was taken from man's side, is analogous to the Spirit. Okay, then the Spirit is a fallen sinner, giving life to fallen men. So much for redemption. Lvka is picking and choosing from the narrative. I'm referring to the creation itself, man in his unfallen state. Lvka is drawing from man's fallen state.

Good job, Lvka.

I also had no idea that one has to actually become Orthodox in order to know that mommys and daddys don't make little children by way of breathing or respiration, and that men don't enter into labor in order to give birth to their wives.

Lvka is burning a straw man, attributing words to me I did not write and failing to interact with what I actually did write.

Was Christ a woman? Is He called ANYWHERE God's Wife, instead of God's Son? :-/

Well, since you ask, implicitly, yes, He is.

In Matthew he is portrayed as the True Israel. In the OT, God is depicted as a husband to Israel.

In Proverbs, He is depicted as Wisdom, a woman crying out in the streets, so, yes, He is depicted in feminine terms.

Christ is called in the NT "the Beloved" a spousal metaphor, in that case a husband.

...just like Adam, the son of God according to Luke, was made in the Image of God, so his sons are born in his image. But the Spirit is NOT in the Image of God (Scripture nowhere says so), nor is Eve in the likeness of Adam (same reason).That's because neither Eve nor the Spirit are obtained through filiation, but through something completely different (procession or being-taken-from-man's-side). From God, but not through sonship; from man, who is in God's image, but not through sonship.

Our God is the God of Love (that's the NT definition of Him), and love with force is called rape, and rape is forbidden by Holy Scripture. Now, Monergism or the belief in "Irresistable Grace" is such a form of spiritual rape (given Your own Biblical Christ-as-Bridegroom and Church-AS-wife symbolism). Were there to be such a thing as "Irresistable Grace", the Scriptures wouldn't speak of such a concept as that of a sin against the Holy Ghost in the first place: which means just that: to wilfully opose God's Holy Grace, given to us by His Holy Spirit. :-(

Well, well. I find it interesting how every now and then the Eastern Orthodox hatred towards Augustine flares up. EOs just cannot stomach his theology, and are driven nuts by the fact that he has such a prominent place in church history.

Being semi-Pelagians at heart, they would sweep Augustine into Orwellian memory hole if they only thought they could get away with it.

Some hardcore EOs are openly (and petulantly) accusing Augustine of being a great heretic who mislead the whole Western church:

There's nothing wrong with accusing Augustine of heresies in certain points in which he blatantly commited them. It has been already done more than one-and-a-half millennia ago, by the monastic followers of St. John Chrisostom, the so-called semi-Pelagian Fathers (i.e., the Scythian monks). As a Romanian, I take great joy in them. :-)

Origen and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are also among my favorites (I have this thing for trouble-makers, You see): the first was excommunicated centuries after his death by the 5th Synod; the second left the Church of his own accord and good-will to become a Montanist heretic; and the third's name disappeared from calendars and synaxarions some one millennium after his death, because of certain problematic passages discovered in writings that possibly weren't even his.

I tried to keep a balanced view of St. Augustine, until I saw that his filioque could NOT be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, no matter how hard someone tries to excuse him. But what finally blew my socks off was when I read with my own eyes the Sabellian absurdities that he wrote concerning the Trinity ... (which absurdities would even be spotted by our NeoProtestant friend Allan here ... which is simply stupid, because the opinions of Protestants are in Orthodoxy 1,000 miles below what we expect from a Church Father ... especially a great one, like St. Augustine): the man actually wrote that:

-- God is Spirit, so the Trinity equals the Holy Spirit;-- the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, so the Son might also be called Father;-- and since he (the Spirit) does that, we might also be calling him Son;-- etc.

I mean, when I read those, I even forgot about his other mistakes (the usual ones concerning the Filioque or Grace and free will).

I'm *NOT* saying that "everything" that he wrote was that bad: his books on his own life and repentance are very good, and it's laudatory that he was the first one to write entire books concerning retractions of previous mistakes of which he himself became in the mean time aware, but, quite frankly, I would NOT recommend any of the writings of these four great men to anyone converting to our faith, to catechumens, even to those that are simple-minded faithful believers. I wouldn't give them to my (inextant) children either. It's all just a sane and healthy safety-measure, really. :-\

"No, it condemned monotheletism. The assertion that it condemned monergism is a conclusion that your side of the aisle draws, generally without benefit of argument. That's what you get for getting your arguments from Perry. But, hey, if you think you can sustain that argument, by all means do try."

All one has to do is simply read the partisan debates amongst the interlocutors of the controversey. The most notable one that will highlight that you are clearly mistaken here is the Disputation with Pyrrhus by St. Maximus the Confessor. Perhaps you haven't read the primary sources? Anyways, the decree can't be divorced from the context of the debate and the decree condemens that their be one will and *one energy* in Christ. You may want to realize that Byzantine Monergism also understood that Christ appropriated a human energy and that it was determined solely by the divine energy of the Word to render one and only one outcome, predestination style. It was this understanding that was refuted in the Disputation.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I believe that Gene is merely arguing for an *analogy* between the Trinity and the nuclear family, and also arguing that the Trinity is the exemplar of the nuclear family. But in any analogy there are disanalogies. That’s implicit in his comparison. To point out dissimilarities between the Trinity and the nuclear family is beside the point since Gene is not argument from identity, but analogy.

I am aware of the family being one of the images of God in man; but I was flaberghasted by his attempt to criss-cross the last two and equating Son with woman and Spirit with sonship. (In my analogy, there are no dissimilarities between these two).

If You're saying that a Son can also be a Mother, then You *ARE* being modalistic.

1. Only if the Son and the Father are the same thing, and only if Adam and Eve are the same person.

Can you quote me saying that? No, quite the contrary.

And I never said "the Son can be a Mother." Rather, I stated, within the intertrintarian relation:

The Father generates the Son

*just as*

Woman was taken from Man

The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son

*just as*

A child proceeds from its parents

That's called an *analogy.*

You can't seem to wrap it around your tiny brain that the reason the filiation applies to the Son, is not because of the title "Son," but because, according to your own Trinitarianism, the generation of the Son. The Son is the image of the Father, generated eternally by Him. His essence is derived from the Father...and Woman's essence is derived from man, insofar as God, in the narrative, took from Man and made Woman from him.

You're too busy acting like a demagogue here to ask questions about the analogy. No, you come here as if you are judge, jury, and executioner and attack it. Consider this your first warning - improve your behavior, or be banned. It's simple. You don't get to play demagogue here - not now, not ever.

In Proverbs, He is depicted as Wisdom, a woman crying out in the streets, so, yes, He is depicted in feminine terms.

That would be the Holy Spirit.

You might want to exegete the text. It's quite common to exegete Wisdom shouting in the streets in Proverbs 8 as a typological foreshadowing of Christ, not the Spirit.

The only point of controversy here is 8:22, but if you see that as a metaphor foreshadowing the truth of the generation of the Son, that's not a problem.

By the way, this is hardly a uniquely Protestant viewpoint.

And Christ is called the Wisdom of God by none other than Paul, but, hey if you want to make the facile argument that because "Sophia" can be used of the Spirit and that Proverbs is, consequently, talking about the Spirit, by all means do so. It only advertises your ignorance of Scripture for the world to see.

Of course, what you neglected to mention is the it's the Wisdom of Solomon that connects the Holy Spirit to Sophia. So, now, once again, you're begging the question for Orthodoxy - yet again. But then, if your belief in the inspiration of Scripture extends to pious frauds, by all means, make that argument.

And in the Apocalypse: Christ as a BrideGroom. :-\

Irrelevant, for this relates to the relation between Christ and the Church, not the Son and the Father.

You have #2 and #3 mixed up. (And because we don't play with the notion of Personhood, since we're not modalistic).

I'm glad you brought this up.

So, now you are equating the Spirit with Eve. That means you, sir, think the Spirit is a Mother. Where is the supporting argument? All the objections you've raised to me, you now need to answer.

Calling on her name, Eve, won't help you, for in the creation narrative she was named "woman," not Eve. She was named Eve as a consequence of the Fall. So, your argument falls apart at a critical point of comparison, for the life she gives is related to fallen man - but we're not discussing redemption, we're discussing the inter-Trinitarian relationship. Since sin does not enter into that, and since the relation Eve would embody would related to redemptive history, not the interTrinitarian relation or creation qua creation, your argument fails, as most of them do.

Now, if you want to call on the Spirit's overshadowing of Mary in the virginal conception, we can do that, but that applies to the Incarnation - not the interTrinitarian relation. So, if you make particular move, you wind up affirming adoptionism.

But the Spirit is NOT in the Image of God (Scripture nowhere says so), nor is Eve in the likeness of Adam (same reason).

This won't help you either.

1. You're now appealing to Scripture, but Scripture is not your rule of faith,.2. You're now trying to use the GHM, but the GHM is not your method of exegesis.

So, now you're using a double standard. I'll keep this filed away for future reference.

3. I'm drawing an *analogy.*

The Spirit is not in the image of God? Really? So the Spirit and the other Two don't possess the same essence?

Woman is not in the image of man? Really? So Woman was not derived from Man? Is that what the text indicates?

Here's the sequence of events in her creation:

1. God created Adam in His image. 2. God took a rib from Adam and made a female. 3. Adam (Literally "man" in Hebrew) called her "Woman."She was *not* named "Eve" at that point. 4. The fact that her name is "Woman" is indicative that her essence was derived from "Man." She is called, "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh." She is called "woman" because she was taken out of man. She is, literally, a female man, as vira is to vir in Latin.

Our God is the God of Love (that's the NT definition of Him),

God's love is not His only attribute.

Now, Monergism or the belief in "Irresistable Grace" is such a form of spiritual rape (given Your own Biblical Christ-as-Bridegroom and Church-AS-wife symbolism). A straw man. God raises the dead to life and they willingly believe. Did Jesus rape Lazarus when he was raised?

Were there to be such a thing as "Irresistable Grace", the Scriptures wouldn't speak of such a concept as that of a sin against the Holy Ghost in the first place: which means just that: to wilfully opose God's Holy Grace, given to us by His Holy Spirit. :-(

IG only refers to regeneration. Calvinism affirms that people can apostatize. And IG doesn't mean people can't or don't resist grace.

Another facile argument. Where, in Scripture, is Libertarian Free Will taught. We'll wait for you to figure it out, to date not a single Libertarian here has been able to answer this question, but, hey, maybe you with your obviously superior mental acument will be able to go where none of them have dared to tread.

but I was flaberghasted by his attempt to criss-cross the last two and equating Son with woman and Spirit with sonship

I did not equate the Spirit with Sonship. Go back, Lvka, and read what I wrote. I drew an analogy between the Spirit and a *child* not the Spirit and a *son.* The fact that you constantly misrepresent the discussion is a sign of your weak hand.

All one has to do is simply read the partisan debates amongst the interlocutors of the controversey. The most notable one that will highlight that you are clearly mistaken here is the Disputation with Pyrrhus by St. Maximus the Confessor. Perhaps you haven't read the primary sources? Anyways, the decree can't be divorced from the context of the debate and the decree condemens that their be one will and *one energy* in Christ. You may want to realize that Byzantine Monergism also understood that Christ appropriated a human energy and that it was determined solely by the divine energy of the Word to render one and only one outcome, predestination style. It was this understanding that was refuted in the Disputation.

1. A classic example of begging the question. Punting there won't do you any good, Perry, for now you're begging the question for Orthodoxy by discussing the divine energies, et.al. Do you have an argument that's not question-begging? I have yet to see it.

2. Where's the exegetical argument against monergism? We'll wait for you to provide it and fail - yet again.

3. I am aware of this argument from you, but, once again, it doesn't do you any good, for you, as usual assume, without benefit of argument, that Christ had libertarian freedom in the process. Where's the supporting argument for Libertarian action theory? We've seen you try that move and fail, but perhaps you'll try and mount it again.

4. Disputations and Councils are not our rule of faith. So, once again, you beg the question. Why should we accept your rule of faith?

a stone just flew through my bedroom window some 2 hrs ago, at 2 AM this morning ... something that never ever happened before, and I live here for 25 yrs. Guess I must've attracted some curses on me from your side, or something :)

OK, now this being said: Exodus 28:3 And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.Deuteronomy 34:9 ¶And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.Isaiah 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Scripture rightly interpreted within the light of Holy Tradition is the rule of faith of the Orthodox Church. Always has been and always will be.

God is Life, and when man turns away from Him, he inevitably enters the realm of death. The Fathers say: God created us without our will, but does not redeem us without our will. The same can be said about Lazarus: we will all resurrect one day, but whether this resurrection will be unto life eternal, or unto death eternal, it's up to us.

God has 1,000 attributes, but only two of them are used as a definition of Him: one in the Old Testament, where it says: I AM Who I AM (that is, God is Life); and "God is Love". It's not in vain that this has been done so. Disputations and Councils are not our rule of faith. So, once again, you beg the question. Why should we accept your rule of faith?

You said that the 6th Council never condemned Monergism; and yet we've clearly shown that it did; we're not asking You to accept the 6th Council and become Orthodox, but we are asking You to see that the 6th Synod did condemn what it clearly condemned, and not to deny the obvious, since there's really no point in doing that.

I'm OK with Adam and Eve's con-substantiality being a sign of the Father and the Spirit's con-substantiality (the Fathers used this very same argument against the Arians, who said that even if the Son were to be of the same essence, the Spirit couldn't have been, because He was not born from the Father, and as such being homoousios with Him was not a possibility).

I said that "Wisdom, or Sophia, is *ALSO* a term for the Holy Spirit"; not that it was applied solely to Him.

And yes, the fact that the Ruach or Hokma or Sophia are feminine nouns, and the Spirit's action in the first verses of Genesis has been constantly interpeted as that of a mother-hen hatching its eggs, (and its hovering over the Virgin enters into the same feminine attributes), is very neat to know when You're nagged by some rather tediously stupid "atheist apologets" that want to say that the episode of Christ's Virgin birth is "adopted" from pagan myths of gods fathering demigods.

The fact that Adam begat sons "in his image", however, (which is *also* said only *after* the fall) does not bother You, not one bit. (Just like he also was God's son [Luke] made in His Image [Genesis])

Your rule of faith was not the rule of Faith of Christianity. It never was and it never will be.

You all need to stop reading the Nicene creed in Church. You also need to stop "professing" to follow the creed of Nicea.

You don't follow the Ancient Faith. You are a new and foriegn set of bodies.

What right to do have to call the Ancient heresies "heresy", when you all disagree with the Orthodox body that called them "heresies" in the first place?

You don't follow Nicea and you don't follow Chalcedon. And the one who said that the otherside of the Isle called Calvin's triniterianism "orthodox", doesn't know what he's talking about.

Who said Rome's modalistic leanings were "sound" to begin with? Also, how do you know that Rome even knew that Calvin believed in the Asiety of the Son?

And what will Rome say now, when some modern Reformed scholars assert the Asiety of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

That's pure tri-theism!!! Plain and simple. The Reformed are no different from Rome when it comes to adding and taking away from the creed of Nicea. Yet, you go to her for confirmation on Calvin's triniterianism. If you depart from Nicea your triniterianism can't be "orthodox". It can't be sound....And if Rome agrees with Calvin's Asiety of the Son view then she's wrong too! It's not like it's the first time she has been wrong about her additions to the creed.

Don't pretend to hold the Nicene Faith when you don't.

Don't pretend to hold the Chalcedonian Faith when you don't.

The reformed have no right to call "anyone" heretics when they themselves depart from the ancient creeds.

You say that your view of the Trinity came from scripture......well what do you think Arius stuck to? Saint Athanasius used Scripture plus everything else the Church had in her possesion.

Apart from the perfect parallelism with Eve and the feminine nouns (such as Sophia, Hokma, Ruach) used in conjunction with it, the feminine role of the Holy Spirit can also be seen in the Mystery of Holy Baptism: there are three notions used interchangeably to denote this reality: (1) being born of the Holy Spirit; (2) being born anew; and (3) being born from above. (Also the Spirit descending on Christ at His Holy Baptism, for further support of #1 above).

In regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Monarchy of the Father was held in the pre-nicene world, and it was held in the Nicene and post Nicene world. The west was infected by modalism, the east kepted the Asiety of the Father view.

Those who came from John never held to your view of the Trinity. They held to the Asiety of the Father. So your reading of the Gospel of John is false. The Christians of the first 4 hundred years didn't hold to your interpretation of the Gospel of John in regards to these matters.

So don't blame the Gospel of John for your views.

Instead, blame John Calvin & friends. Your popes, when it comes to these issues.

Why don't you actually interact with our arguments that we've presented. The early church's interpretation of the passages in John that caused them to think that the Son and the Spirit receive their Being from the Father was based off of some of the most basic exegetical errors. Quite simply, they were wrong. If you wish to defend your position, please provide a defense of the early fathers interpretation of John.

Next, we've always held that each person is a se in that they each share in the Being and attributes of the others. They cannot exist a se independently. This is not Tritheism.

Lastly, let us not forget where the idea of derivative Being came from:

“The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made’), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinction between the immanent word (logos hendiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).”-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.96.

“[Clement of Alexandria] clearly distinguishes the Three, and the charge of modalism, based on his lack of any technical term to designate the Persons, is groundless; and if he appears to subordinate the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Son, the subordination implies no inequality of being, but is the corollary of his Platonic conception of a graded hierarchy.”-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), pp. 127-128.

“No doubt he tries to meet the most stringent demands of monotheism by insisting tht the fulness of unoriginate Godhead is concentrated in the Father, Who alone is ‘the fountain-head of deity’… As it is formulated by Origen, however, the underlying structure of thought is unmistakably borrowed from contemporary Platonism.”-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), p.131.

“In a more limited field the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the thoroughgoing subordinationism which is integral to Origen’s Trinitarian scheme. The Father, as we have seen, is alone [autotheos]; so St. John, he points out, accurately describes the Son simply as [Theos], not [ho Theos]. In relation to the God of the universe He merits a secondary degree of honour; for He is not absolute goodness and truth, but His goodness and truth are a reflection and image of the Father’s.”-J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, reprinted 2003), pp. 131-132.

If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.

If they were wrong about that I think Saint John would of corrected them. The Asiety of the Father view was the basic view. To say that it's wrong is to say that the Apostles were in error.

If the Apostles didn't have that view in mind then they would of said it differently. they would of said it in a way that would suit your view. But they didn't.

So there are no "basic exegetical errors" when the very people that came from Saint John held to that view.

No, the exegetical error comes from those who lived 1,200 plus years later. They never sat of Saint John's feet. They never heard him speak. They never were part of the Ancient church. They don't know what was passed down.

NO! Calvin and friends were too bizzy trying to remold & reconstruct western christianity to the new methods of the " renaissance movement"!

They thought they could pull off the same results in christianity that was done in the natural sciences.

They were wrong. Just like the Reformed were wrong again when many of them tries to use the "Enlightenment movement" to reshape christianity.

By the way, I have J.N.D. Kelly's book. I also have Alister Mcgrath, Jaroslav Pelikan, and the Roman Catholic scholar Leo Donald Davis.....not to mention others.

They all have their pluses and minuses.

One of the downside to Kelly is that sometimes he tries to make a "development" where there is non. And it seems that he has the assumption that there was some dissconnect between the first century with the later centuries....as if there wasn't doctrines passed on from one generation to the next.

Other scholars don't have that same weakness.

Some scholars will Admit that the Gospel of John was also influenced by Philo. I know that you guys disagree with that, but it's obvious that Saint John used Philo's work as a reference.

So I disagree with Kelly in certain places.

And by the way. Origen was a christian neoplatonist. But Origen and Clemant of Alexandria should be put in a different category from the others.

Your view of the Trinity wasn't present. The Asiety of the Father view was, and it always was.

All you're doing is repeating old arguments. We've been over the argument from tradition time and again. Steve and the guys from Triablogue have done so on numerous occasions, and I have done so in a systematic fashion:

Second, Kelly doesn't argue that there was development. He simply shows (as even many Eastern Orthodox have done) that when the gospel went from a predominantly Hebrew culture to a Greco-Roman one, many of the new converts (such as Justin Martyr, a Platonic philosopher) brought in their own cultural/philosophical categories. The idea of the Father being the 'fountainhead of Deity' started with Justin, and many have noted his terminology and phraseology match Philo and other Platonists. His thought ended up in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Because of this, the entire Christian Church had been infected with this popular thought. Athanasius simply took this and never thought twice that it might be wrong.

"Some scholars will Admit that the Gospel of John was also influenced by Philo. I know that you guys disagree with that, but it's obvious that Saint John used Philo's work as a reference."

John wasn't using the Logos idea from Greek thought, but instead, he used the term (knowingly) and imported Hebrew theology into it which resulted in a complete negation of the Logos idea of Stoicism.

"In scripture we see Saint Paul using greek philosophy in order to draw the pagan educated greeks."

He used their terms but never accepted their categories. Justin Martyr on the other hand accepted both.

[BTW: When are you going to make a Scriptural argument that the Son and Spirit receive their Being from the Father?]

“Your rule of faith was not the rule of Faith of Christianity. It never was and it never will be.”

Our rule of faith is divine revelation, inscripturated in the Bible.

Oh, and you don’t hold the copyright to Christianity.

“You all need to stop reading the Nicene creed in Church. You also need to stop ‘professing’ to follow the creed of Nicea.”

You all need to stop reading the Bible in Church. You also need to stop "professing” to follow the Bible.

“You don't follow the Ancient Faith. You are a new and foriegn set of bodies.”

Funny, that’s what the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees said about Jesus and his followers.

“What right to do have to call the Ancient heresies ‘heresy’, when you all disagree with the Orthodox body that called them ‘heresies’ in the first place?”

You need to stop thinking with your glands and use that organ between your ears. The answer is quite simple: A Protestant doesn’t call an ancient heresy heretical because the Orthodox church called it heretical. Rather, we call it heretical if it denies a fundamental tenant of Scripture.

“You don't follow Nicea and you don't follow Chalcedon.”

I didn’t do a post on Chalcedon. But to judge by Perry Robinson’s elitism, nobody can profess Chalcedon unless he’s read the latest technical monograph on Cyrillian Christology. So that disqualifies you.

“When some modern Reformed scholars assert the Asiety of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?__That's pure tri-theism!!! Plain and simple.”

And restricting aseity to the Father is pure unitarianism. Plain and simple.

Anyway, the larger point is not to begin with an abstract, a priori definition of monotheism, then prune back the witness of Scripture to comply with our stipulations and specifications. Rather, we ought to begin with God’s self-revelation.

Your attitude is no different than a Jehovah’s Witness.

“The Reformed are no different from Rome when it comes to adding and taking away from the creed of Nicea.”

Since the Nicene creed is a man-made creed, there’s nothing inherently wrong with adding to it or subtracting from it.

“The reformed have no right to call ‘anyone’ heretics when they themselves depart from the ancient creeds.”

Better to depart from a creed than to depart from the Word of God.

“You say that your view of the Trinity came from scripture......well what do you think Arius stuck to? Saint Athanasius used Scripture plus everything else the Church had in her possesion.”

So you’re admitting that Arius was right? That Scripture teaches an Arian Christology? And the only way to rebut Arius is to trump Scripture with “everything else”?

Are You God incarnate? Have You come to set forth a NEW revelation, perhaps a third Testament even? Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Have You come down from Heaven to show us new and improved additions and accretions to the once-and-for-all delivered faith of the Saints? Jude 1:3 ¶Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Are You so unaware that there's NO HIGHER revelation of God TO man than the revelation of God IN man?

And YOU're the one spewing forth all this stuff about "additons" and "accretions" to the faith depository, huh? (I guess, with >friends< such as You, who needs enemies, right?). (And with >defenders< like You, who needs attackers, right?). :-\

The question of whether the Son and the Spirit are autotheistic has nothing to do with a new revelation, but, instead, with the correct interpretation of Biblical revelation.

Have lost all the arguments, you current tactic is to simply throw any irrelevancy in our direction regardless of whether that’s responsive to anything we’ve posted. I’m not going to waste endless amounts of time on your diversionary tactics. Either say something relevant, or I’ll start deleting your comments.