Complete of the trinity persons is unbiblical and unorthodox. Its just Augustinian shit parroted by the Western Church and its bastard protestant offspring. The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality and seems to suggest that the Father is monarchical the son and spirit
Potentially. It's a legitimate argument, but also not "Orthodox", since it's neither Orthodox doctrine nor unique to Orthodoxy. But social trinitarianism is either polytheistic or partialist. And others are just as iffy. The Monarchy of the Father looks the best to me
For one, there are plenty of Orthodox that support competing theories, like Social Trinitarianism. See John Zizioulas. The Monarchy of the Father is probably the most popular belief, but it's neither doctrine nor dogma
Monarchy of the father is one of the main the reasons for the Filioque controversy
1 year ago
Anonymous
Sure, but it's still not doctrine. It's a very popular theological opinion, but there has not been a council on the matter and a diversity of opinion exists within the church.
>The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality >homoousian
You're complaining about us not making a distinction of substance because you're an Arian. The persons of the Godhead are homoousian. How you can characterize a doctrine that literally does nothing but explicitly distinguish the Son and the Spirit as Modalist is mind-boggling
The Monarchy of the Father is not at odds with the Creed. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian, and by that they are each God and each equal. I believe what
Complete of the trinity persons is unbiblical and unorthodox. Its just Augustinian shit parroted by the Western Church and its bastard protestant offspring. The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality and seems to suggest that the Father is monarchical the son and spirit
is saying in less words is that, while remaining equal, the Father has a special place in the relationships between the hypostases. For in the Monarchy of the Father, the Father has the unique attribute of being Autotheos. Since the Son and Holy Spirit owe Their uncreated origin to Him, being eternally begotten and proceeding, respectively. The Father is "first among equals", if you will 😉
That said, while I do side toward the Monarchy, I'm open to other models. After all it's not doctrine and I do find the Arian argument compelling. I've been planning to read a number of papers on the different theories after watching link related a few weeks back:
1 year ago
Anonymous
This is correct. Divine aseity is upheld in the other persons when we say they are God from God. To say the other persons two persons of the Trinity are autotheos violates historic Trinitarian language concerning the perichoresis of the Godhead.
You make no real distinction between the hypostases. You say they are only relations while denying the true reality of the distinctions. The fact of the matter being that the Father is simply God as God, whereas the Son and Holy Spirit are God from God, just as the creed says. If this were not the case there would be no distinction between the persons. Not only are you Modalists but since you deny the uncreatedness of the energies you also worship a intermediary created deity and thus you are polytheists. Simple as.
You're complaining about us not making a distinction of substance because you're an Arian. The persons of the Godhead are homoousian. How you can characterize a doctrine that literally does nothing but explicitly distinguish the Son and the Spirit as Modalist is mind-boggling
1 year ago
Anonymous
Why do you keep lying? They are homoousian, they share one substance. The substance is communicated from the Father to the other persons. God's hypostases are not the same as the ousia, which is what you're claiming. That's modalism. The Orthodox Church just teaches what the Church Fathers and historic Church and scripture teaches. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and one Spirit (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-5).
Picrel essentially solved this dispute, stop coping and admit that Eastern Orthodoxy only exists for the same reason the Church of England does: as the religious arm of governments east of Tiber. Catholicism also only exists because of the Papal desire for power and being seen as a monarchy on par with the rest of the kingdoms around it.
Arius was right
Arius had sex with men
I didn't say he was right about everything
Complete of the trinity persons is unbiblical and unorthodox. Its just Augustinian shit parroted by the Western Church and its bastard protestant offspring. The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality and seems to suggest that the Father is monarchical the son and spirit
*complete equality
>The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality
>homoousian
Potentially. It's a legitimate argument, but also not "Orthodox", since it's neither Orthodox doctrine nor unique to Orthodoxy. But social trinitarianism is either polytheistic or partialist. And others are just as iffy. The Monarchy of the Father looks the best to me
Define orthodox
It’s not Orthodox doctrine? Source?
For one, there are plenty of Orthodox that support competing theories, like Social Trinitarianism. See John Zizioulas. The Monarchy of the Father is probably the most popular belief, but it's neither doctrine nor dogma
In this context, I'm speaking of Eastern Orthodox
Monarchy of the father is one of the main the reasons for the Filioque controversy
Sure, but it's still not doctrine. It's a very popular theological opinion, but there has not been a council on the matter and a diversity of opinion exists within the church.
The Monarchy of the Father is not at odds with the Creed. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousian, and by that they are each God and each equal. I believe what
is saying in less words is that, while remaining equal, the Father has a special place in the relationships between the hypostases. For in the Monarchy of the Father, the Father has the unique attribute of being Autotheos. Since the Son and Holy Spirit owe Their uncreated origin to Him, being eternally begotten and proceeding, respectively. The Father is "first among equals", if you will 😉
That said, while I do side toward the Monarchy, I'm open to other models. After all it's not doctrine and I do find the Arian argument compelling. I've been planning to read a number of papers on the different theories after watching link related a few weeks back:
This is correct. Divine aseity is upheld in the other persons when we say they are God from God. To say the other persons two persons of the Trinity are autotheos violates historic Trinitarian language concerning the perichoresis of the Godhead.
Arius made more sense than your mumbo jumbo
The Catholic concept of the Filioque is crypto-Modalism. Fact.
Why do ortholarpers insist on embarrassing themselves
You make no real distinction between the hypostases. You say they are only relations while denying the true reality of the distinctions. The fact of the matter being that the Father is simply God as God, whereas the Son and Holy Spirit are God from God, just as the creed says. If this were not the case there would be no distinction between the persons. Not only are you Modalists but since you deny the uncreatedness of the energies you also worship a intermediary created deity and thus you are polytheists. Simple as.
You're complaining about us not making a distinction of substance because you're an Arian. The persons of the Godhead are homoousian. How you can characterize a doctrine that literally does nothing but explicitly distinguish the Son and the Spirit as Modalist is mind-boggling
Why do you keep lying? They are homoousian, they share one substance. The substance is communicated from the Father to the other persons. God's hypostases are not the same as the ousia, which is what you're claiming. That's modalism. The Orthodox Church just teaches what the Church Fathers and historic Church and scripture teaches. There is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and one Spirit (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-5).
Picrel essentially solved this dispute, stop coping and admit that Eastern Orthodoxy only exists for the same reason the Church of England does: as the religious arm of governments east of Tiber. Catholicism also only exists because of the Papal desire for power and being seen as a monarchy on par with the rest of the kingdoms around it.