OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 05:10:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Trinity Statement: Some Evangelicals re-defining the Trinity?  (Read 2401 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« on: December 02, 2011, 12:18:56 AM »

Here's some Sabellianism in "mainstream protestantism" for you.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity-63436/

What was that about most Christians being able to recite the creed and mean it?

Shamelessly stolen from Father Anastasios.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2011, 12:29:14 AM »

^ On my Facebook, since I rarely have time to post here anymore Sad
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2011, 01:31:15 AM »

I agree their language is garbled but so is that employed by someone like St. Leo.

This is the thrust of their movement. http://www.trinitystatement.com/popular-statement/

Quote
Each Person is distinct, yet there is only one essence or Being who is God, not three separate Gods. Each Person of the One Triune God shares equally in honor, glory, worship, power, authority, and rank. The Bible never suggests that any one Person of the Trinity has eternal superiority or authority over the others, or that one is in eternal subordination to another. The Son’s submission and obedience to the Father were voluntary and related specifically to the time during which he humbled himself, took on human nature, and dwelled among us as a servant.

Despite the problematic usage of terms, I don't see a denial of the separateness of the Persons, only of their function hierarchy. Not quite Orthodox, I realize, but not Sabellian as far I can see.

Basically they believe that for Jesus to have a functional subordination makes Him somehow less God than the Father. They then go on to tie this into gender equality views somehow. I think that they're nuts but not heretical.

And furthermore, how many Orthodox hold errant views like this? Are they now heretics?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 01:31:31 AM by Volnutt » Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2011, 01:35:21 AM »

Basically they believe that for Jesus to have a functional subordination makes Him somehow less God than the Father.
Umm how is that not heretical?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2011, 01:39:59 AM »

It's good that Christians are finally getting around to figuring this out after 2000 years...took them long enough!  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 01:40:48 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2011, 01:45:14 AM »

Basically they believe that for Jesus to have a functional subordination makes Him somehow less God than the Father.
Umm how is that not heretical?
I was not aware that having a false estimation of the consequences of beliefs was itself heretical.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2011, 02:02:13 AM »

"Aspects"? Hmmm...so Jesus is like the Father's nice and gentle side or something?  Huh (I'm thinking of comedian Lewis Black here: "I don't know what was going on with the Old Testament God...maybe having a Son calmed Him down...")

Also what does "false estimation of the consequences" mean? The consequences of Christ's incarnation? If they believe that Christ is somehow "less God" than the Father, no matter what the reason, that sounds like heresy to me. Am I missing something?
Logged

Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2011, 02:08:30 AM »

"Aspects"? Hmmm...so Jesus is like the Father's nice and gentle side or something?  Huh (I'm thinking of comedian Lewis Black here: "I don't know what was going on with the Old Testament God...maybe having a Son calmed Him down...")
What aspects?
Also what does "false estimation of the consequences" mean? The consequences of Christ's incarnation? If they believe that Christ is somehow "less God" than the Father, no matter what the reason, that sounds like heresy to me. Am I missing something?
No, they think having Jesus functionally subordinate to the Father would make him less God than the Father. The reject functional subordination.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2011, 02:18:34 AM »

Quote
What aspects?

Sorry, I should have specified that this is the word that they used in the article, that the Trinity is three "aspects" of one God.

No, they think having Jesus functionally subordinate to the Father would make him less God than the Father. The reject functional subordination.

I don't know that I like the term "functional subordination" either, as I've always thought that Christ's position relative to the Father (if it is safe to speculate about such things, just for the sake of explanation) has to do with the Father being the origin of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Logged

Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2011, 02:43:34 AM »


Sorry, I should have specified that this is the word that they used in the article, that the Trinity is three "aspects" of one God.
I didn't see that. They don't seem to speak of the Persons as only being modes of the Father, at any rate.

I don't know that I like the term "functional subordination" either, as I've always thought that Christ's position relative to the Father (if it is safe to speculate about such things, just for the sake of explanation) has to do with the Father being the origin of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
True, but the Father also sends the Son.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2011, 02:57:14 AM »

Volnutt, it's typically called "relational subordination" not "functional subordination."
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2011, 03:01:06 AM »

True, but the Father also sends the Son.

Yes, He does. What are you getting at?
Logged

Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2011, 03:03:43 AM »

Volnutt, it's typically called "relational subordination" not "functional subordination."
Noted.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2011, 07:04:48 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2011, 07:09:45 PM »

And furthermore, how many Orthodox hold errant views like this? Are they now heretics?

If they insist upon them after being corrected, yes.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2011, 07:33:31 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

I am trying to come up with a new heresy, perhaps one I can be the eponymous founder of.

Thanks.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2011, 08:32:59 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2011, 08:58:48 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.

I think Orthodox do that as well.

Who is the second Person of the Trinity?

Does it matter which Person I answer?

If so, why?
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2011, 09:03:48 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.

I think Orthodox do that as well.

Who is the second Person of the Trinity?

Does it matter which Person I answer?

If so, why?

The second is the Son by convention, i don't think it matter's which order they are in... Huh
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2011, 09:08:29 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.

I think Orthodox do that as well.

Who is the second Person of the Trinity?

Does it matter which Person I answer?

If so, why?

The second is the Son by convention, i don't think it matter's which order they are in... Huh

Convention = tradition. So why does this tradition exist?

I ask any Orthodox that question, I am going to get that answer.

There are reasons for this. Reasons that ought to make Orthodox a little less enthusiastic to wave their All Understanding of the Trinitarian Banner.

The first Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.

You OK with that?
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2011, 09:10:49 PM »

Does it matter which Person I answer?

Good question.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2011, 09:19:51 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.

I think Orthodox do that as well.
In the pews, probably (although I've never encountered any Orthodox who confused the two). I'd hope, though, that 73 assembled Orthodox theologians wouldn't make such an egregious mistake.

Why do my posts seem to bother you so often? Should you really be concerned that I believe that Orthodox Triadology is right and that Evangelical Triadology is wrong?

Quote
Who is the second Person of the Trinity?
Jesus Christ.

Quote
Does it matter which Person I answer?

If so, why?
It's a revealed doctrine on the All-holy Trinity. You shouldn't be meddling with them.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2011, 09:22:27 PM »

There are reasons for this. Reasons that ought to make Orthodox a little less enthusiastic to wave their All Understanding of the Trinitarian Banner.
Sigh...

Can you please stop seeing triumphalism everywhere? It is not wrong to see the Orthodox Church as the only Church holding the fullness of true Trinitarian doctrine. Please stop acting like it is.

Quote
The first Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.

You OK with that?
Not at all. It threatens the Monarchy of the Father.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2011, 09:24:50 PM »

Does it matter which Person I answer?

Good question.
Shouldn't the Father be first?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2011, 09:30:30 PM »

"Spencer added that such an approach most often stemmed from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. By dividing the two, he said Jesus' sacrifice on the cross would count for less given he wasn't the entirety of God when he gave his life."

Sounds like patripassianism to me.

It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father.

I think Orthodox do that as well.
In the pews, probably (although I've never encountered any Orthodox who confused the two). I'd hope, though, that 73 assembled Orthodox theologians wouldn't make such an egregious mistake.

Why do my posts seem to bother you so often? Should you really be concerned that I believe that Orthodox Triadology is right and that Evangelical Triadology is wrong?

Quote
Who is the second Person of the Trinity?
Jesus Christ.

Quote
Does it matter which Person I answer?

If so, why?
It's a revealed doctrine on the All-holy Trinity. You shouldn't be meddling with them.

You need not to read in my posts much of what I think about you personally. Best not to do that in general.

I respond to a string of characters posted on this board. Because your strings might catch my attention in a specific way overtime has more to do with their consistency than you as a person. I actually wasn't even responding to you in particular.

I didn't even know you were in the discussion.

If you caught my attention and get my attention personally, it will be clear.

And your answer on the why is weak. That is not personal no matter how consistent it might be.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 09:31:01 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2011, 09:40:20 PM »

You need not to read in my posts much of what I think about you personally. Best not to do that in general.

I respond to a string of characters posted on this board. Because your strings might catch my attention in a specific way overtime has more to do with their consistency than you as a person. I actually wasn't even responding to you in particular.

I didn't even know you were in the discussion.

If you caught my attention and get my attention personally, it will be clear.
Okay, sorry for the confusion.

Quote
And your answer on the why is weak. That is not personal no matter how consistent it might be.
I know that "Ours is not to question why" is very unpopular when it comes to the Western rationalistic mentality, but sometimes we just need to accept it. God is supralogical, beyond any knowledge or reason we can ever attain. And dogmas about the Trinity are among the most important in the faith. If a certain way of expressing said dogmas has been revealed, it is not to be changed or meddled with lightly.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2011, 09:40:58 PM »

And furthermore, how many Orthodox hold errant views like this? Are they now heretics?

If they insist upon them after being corrected, yes.
Fair enough.

I don't think they're saying the entire Godhead was on the Cross, only that the Son must have completely, egalitarian, equality with the Father or else He is by definition less divine than the Father. These are the differences they seek to eliminate, not the distinction between Persons. I agree it's a doomed endeavor, but that doesn't mean it maps to one of the ancient heresies.

My brain is kind of fried right now, sorry. I'll take a second look at the statement in a while.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2011, 09:41:57 PM »

There are reasons for this. Reasons that ought to make Orthodox a little less enthusiastic to wave their All Understanding of the Trinitarian Banner.
Sigh...

Can you please stop seeing triumphalism everywhere? It is not wrong to see the Orthodox Church as the only Church holding the fullness of true Trinitarian doctrine. Please stop acting like it is.

Quote
The first Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit.

You OK with that?
Not at all. It threatens the Monarchy of the Father.

I don't see triumphalism everywhere. If the Orthodox Church has the full of Trinitarian doctrine and you believe this to be the case enough to get into a discussion about it, you better be able to defend it.

Accepting the teaching per teaching (which I am not sure you even understand, since you don't quite get the problem I think) is fine. Just don't expect to convince too many others of it.

Triumphalism is when someone trumpets that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith vis a vis another without much ability to offer an persuasive argument than: it's Orthodox.

How does claiming that the Holy Spirit is the first person of the Trinity threaten the Monarchy of the Father? What of the Monarchy of the Son?

In virtue of what is the Father the first Person of the Trinity?

Why do you think in the Creed, we actually say:

I believe in:

One God, the Father.
One Lord, Jesus Christ
The Holy Spirit.

In that order. With those names?
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2011, 09:47:12 PM »

I know that "Ours is not to question why" is very unpopular when it comes to the Western rationalistic mentality, but sometimes we just need to accept it. God is supralogical, beyond any knowledge or reason we can ever attain. And dogmas about the Trinity are among the most important in the faith. If a certain way of expressing said dogmas has been revealed, it is not to be changed or meddled with lightly.

For the first bolded passage take three drinks. One for each buzzword.

In the second bolded passage, all of Scripture would disagree with you from. From Adam to Moses to Christ to St. Paul. And beyond Scripture to St. Gregory of Palamas to most people I know, who claim to know God.

If you don't know God, then you can't be a Christian.

Seriously.

You are aping an esoteric, (neo)Platonic, Eastern phronema. Now I will drink at least three drinks.

EDIT: To amplify and consolidate my comments from above posts. It is fine to accept the teachings as teachings based on the Church's authority. Just be careful if you get caught up in discussions where that dog won't hunt.

Nothing wrong with belief in virtue of authority.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 09:49:42 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2011, 09:51:27 PM »

Would it be fair to say God is not entirely unknowable, but he is unknowable entirely?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2011, 10:08:44 PM »

I know that "Ours is not to question why" is very unpopular when it comes to the Western rationalistic mentality, but sometimes we just need to accept it. God is supralogical, beyond any knowledge or reason we can ever attain. And dogmas about the Trinity are among the most important in the faith. If a certain way of expressing said dogmas has been revealed, it is not to be changed or meddled with lightly.

For the first bolded passage take three drinks. One for each buzzword.
Your point being...?

Quote
In the second bolded passage, all of Scripture would disagree with you from. From Adam to Moses to Christ to St. Paul. And beyond Scripture to St. Gregory of Palamas to most people I know, who claim to know God.
I doubt that, considering I pretty much lifted it straight from St. Gregory Palamas. The idea of God's ultimate incomprehensibility (in His essence) is also found in the Cappadocians and in St. John Chrysostom.

I'll admit that I don't know too many Scripture passages that'd be relevant, though.

Quote
If you don't know God, then you can't be a Christian.

Seriously.
But I was talking about comprehending Him, not experiencing Him.

Quote
You are aping an esoteric,
I don't see how that'd be the case even if I was saying what you think I'm saying.

Quote
(neo)Platonic,
Well that's okay, considering Platonism ultimately comes from Moses.  Wink

Quote
Eastern phronema.
I'm not sure why this one would be problematic.

Quote
Now I will drink at least three drinks.

EDIT: To amplify and consolidate my comments from above posts. It is fine to accept the teachings as teachings based on the Church's authority. Just be careful if you get caught up in discussions where that dog won't hunt.

Nothing wrong with belief in virtue of authority.
If the dog won't hunt, what are we supposed to do? Pretend that we fully comprehend the Trinity when we clearly don't? If someone has a problem with Christianity's admittance of limited knowledge, oh well.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2011, 10:15:57 PM »

Triumphalism is when someone trumpets that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith vis a vis another without much ability to offer an persuasive argument than: it's Orthodox.
Triumphalism is when someone proclaims the truth so polemically that it is at the expense of charity. It doesn't really have anything to do with justification or a lack thereof, imo.

Quote
How does claiming that the Holy Spirit is the first person of the Trinity threaten the Monarchy of the Father? What of the Monarchy of the Son?
The Monarchy of the Father is the doctrine that the Father is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the origin of any other hypostasis of the Trinity, so He does not have a "Monarchy" in the same sense.

Naming the Spirit before the Father implies that the Father is not the ultimate source of the Trinity.

Quote
In virtue of what is the Father the first Person of the Trinity?

Why do you think in the Creed, we actually say:

I believe in:

One God, the Father.
One Lord, Jesus Christ
The Holy Spirit.

In that order. With those names?

The Monarchy of the Father. If that's not it, then please enlighten me.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2011, 10:18:02 PM »

Would it be fair to say God is not entirely unknowable, but he is unknowable entirely?

Of course.

It seems to me that this find it most elaborate and systematic working out and probably the height and thus end of the engagement of Christian thought with (neo)Platonic thought in St. Gregory of Palamas.

Where else are you going to go or have to "fine tune"?

I also think such an understanding can seen in Scripture or Liturgy. I think taking specific theological arguments held in specific historical and theological contexts and reading them outside that context ain't very profitable.

EOs seem to really clasp onto this "mysticism" or at least folks here or folks I see who talk theologically. They love the ineffable God stuff so much they forget they are constantly naming him. (I use a ribald pun here usually, use your imagination).

Father.
Jesus Christ
Holy Spirit.

Now add every title and adjective that is not "apophatic" we use.

We approach the Living God with the audacity to call Him: Father, Daddy, Papa, however you like to gloss that.

St. Gregory of Palamas is awesome.

But we get all that "understanding" in the Liturgy and the Scriptures.

Oh yeah, we all also make of images of God.

Really, the bulk of Orthodoxy is radically Incarnational. It is good to remember the radical Holiness of God (here meaning unapproachability in its variety of contexts). Orthodoxy does a fine job of that.

I think perhaps in a place, America, where Jesus is often your BBF, the over emphasis on the Holiness of God (again in terms of unapproachability) is understandable, but I believe lamentable.

From the Lord's Prayer, to the Creed, the Jesus Prayer, we name God, approach God in a personal manner. We as persons with unique namable and (humanly) inexhaustible characteristics attempting to find Communion with God, Persons with unique namable and (humanly) inexhaustible characteristics, in perfect Communion with One Another.





« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 10:20:08 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2011, 10:28:02 PM »

I know that "Ours is not to question why" is very unpopular when it comes to the Western rationalistic mentality, but sometimes we just need to accept it. God is supralogical, beyond any knowledge or reason we can ever attain. And dogmas about the Trinity are among the most important in the faith. If a certain way of expressing said dogmas has been revealed, it is not to be changed or meddled with lightly.

For the first bolded passage take three drinks. One for each buzzword.
Your point being...?

Quote
In the second bolded passage, all of Scripture would disagree with you from. From Adam to Moses to Christ to St. Paul. And beyond Scripture to St. Gregory of Palamas to most people I know, who claim to know God.
I doubt that, considering I pretty much lifted it straight from St. Gregory Palamas. The idea of God's ultimate incomprehensibility (in His essence) is also found in the Cappadocians and in St. John Chrysostom.

I'll admit that I don't know too many Scripture passages that'd be relevant, though.

Quote
If you don't know God, then you can't be a Christian.

Seriously.
But I was talking about comprehending Him, not experiencing Him.

Quote
You are aping an esoteric,
I don't see how that'd be the case even if I was saying what you think I'm saying.

Quote
(neo)Platonic,
Well that's okay, considering Platonism ultimately comes from Moses.  Wink

Quote
Eastern phronema.
I'm not sure why this one would be problematic.

Quote
Now I will drink at least three drinks.

EDIT: To amplify and consolidate my comments from above posts. It is fine to accept the teachings as teachings based on the Church's authority. Just be careful if you get caught up in discussions where that dog won't hunt.

Nothing wrong with belief in virtue of authority.
If the dog won't hunt, what are we supposed to do? Pretend that we fully comprehend the Trinity when we clearly don't? If someone has a problem with Christianity's admittance of limited knowledge, oh well.

I am not going to go back and forth much more.

I've already addressed the problems of taking theological language violently out of context.

We are obviously in more agreement than disagreement.

We know God. Experience, comprehend, etc. Well, you do, if you are a Christian.

If you want to carry around words theologically well minced, that is fine, I can liquify them if you would like. Just don't expect it to be to persuasive to people who don't care, need, nor have the time to parse all that out.

Always remember St. Paul and in Athens. What we preach and profess and what the Athenians worshipped.

Does our God look more like St. Paul's? Or the Athenians'?

When we speak to folks talking about the Trinity, do you think it helpful to start with St. Gregory of Palamas or St. Paul?

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2011, 10:31:15 PM »

Triumphalism is when someone trumpets that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith vis a vis another without much ability to offer an persuasive argument than: it's Orthodox.
Triumphalism is when someone proclaims the truth so polemically that it is at the expense of charity. It doesn't really have anything to do with justification or a lack thereof, imo.

Quote
How does claiming that the Holy Spirit is the first person of the Trinity threaten the Monarchy of the Father? What of the Monarchy of the Son?
The Monarchy of the Father is the doctrine that the Father is the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the origin of any other hypostasis of the Trinity, so He does not have a "Monarchy" in the same sense.

Naming the Spirit before the Father implies that the Father is not the ultimate source of the Trinity.

Quote
In virtue of what is the Father the first Person of the Trinity?

Why do you think in the Creed, we actually say:

I believe in:

One God, the Father.
One Lord, Jesus Christ
The Holy Spirit.

In that order. With those names?

The Monarchy of the Father. If that's not it, then please enlighten me.

How did we get here? To this question?

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2011, 11:48:11 PM »

i really don't see the purpose of this thread anymore...
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2011, 12:04:15 AM »

I can't really see what, if anything, is all that heretical in these theologians' definition of the Trinity. I just don't understand why they think they need to rewrite tradition. Haven't we had a functional dogma of the Trinity since A.D. 325? Huh
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:05:17 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2011, 12:05:12 AM »

i really don't see the purpose of this thread anymore...
I think Akimori still wants me to take me to task.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2011, 12:35:33 AM »

i really don't see the purpose of this thread anymore...
I think Akimori still wants me to take me to task.

I'm a bit upset by that characterisation.

I just think your conviction that all the non-Mormon and non-JW Christians essentially agree on the fundamentals of the faith doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I also thought the topic would yield some interesting discussion, which it largely has.

I care about you and in no way wish to carry on any discussion with you for the purpose of putting you in your place or giving you grief.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2011, 12:39:03 AM »

i really don't see the purpose of this thread anymore...
I think Akimori still wants me to take me to task.

I'm a bit upset by that characterisation.

I just think your conviction that all the non-Mormon and non-JW Christians essentially agree on the fundamentals of the faith doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I also thought the topic would yield some interesting discussion, which it largely has.

I care about you and in no way wish to carry on any discussion with you for the purpose of putting you in your place or giving you grief.

I'm sorry Sad It was not meant negatively.


If I'm wrong about something, I deserve to be pwned. I welcome it.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:39:39 AM by Volnutt » Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,151


« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2011, 12:54:09 AM »

I've already addressed the problems of taking theological language violently out of context.
How have I taken theological language out of context?

Quote
When we speak to folks talking about the Trinity, do you think it helpful to start with St. Gregory of Palamas or St. Paul?


St. Paul didn't expound on the Trinity all that much.

I ain't sure what you're going for. I get that you're saying that Orthodox focus too much on apophaticism. How that relates to my original post you objected to ("It does sound a bit like they're confusing the divine essence and the hypostasis of the Father") seems like it will have to remain a mystery.

How did we get here? To this question?

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Although maybe not seeing as how almost every theophany in the OT is seen as a Christophany in Orthodoxy.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2011, 11:50:34 AM »

Quote
“In his new book, Jesus and the Father: Mod­ern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006), Giles shows how a whole generation of conservative evan­gelicals has embraced a new-fangled version of the ancient Trini­tarian heresy of subordinationism. They do not hide their mo­tives. They are determined to see in God what they wish to see in humanity: a subordination of role or function that does not compromise (they insist) an essential equality of being. There­fore, they teach that just as woman is created equal to man but has a subordinate role at home and in church, so the Son of God is coequal with the Father in being or essence but has a subordi­nate role in the work of salvation and in all eternity. They even think—quite mistakenly, as Giles shows—that this is what the Bible and Christian orthodoxy have always taught.”
This is a tricky area. Clearly, the Son and the H.S. are, in some sense, "subordinate" to the Father, but that idea can easily be taken too far.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 11:50:52 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2011, 01:09:51 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is the unfortunate reality of spiritual anarchy.  What anachronistic heresies haven't Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Protestants not preached, taught, or believed?  We must continue in prayer for these folks, that the Light of Christ in the Holy Spirit of the Father reveal the capital "T" Truth to these folks, as only God can properly explain Himself to those who suffer from misunderstandings.

The Son is never "subordinate" to the Father for two fundamental reasons:

a) The Son is co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial as to the Father, so there is clearly no room for subordination in a state of perfected equality and unity

b) There has never been a time where the Son did not exist eternally along with His Father, and so how could the Son have ever been subordinated, either by power of will or by ontological inference?

If the Son were not equal to the Father, then the Son would be subordinate, and if the Son existed AFTER the Father then He would be logically subordinated by the process of Creation, however both assertions are incorrect.


stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 01:12:12 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2011, 01:20:57 PM »

I think we can safely say that the Father is the source or fountainhead of the Divinity.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2011, 04:11:37 PM »

When I get 10 minutes to toss out some kindle here . . .
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2011, 04:17:33 PM »

I've heard alot of this modalistic talk in churches here. The problem stems from there being no foundation for doctrine, but thats what this whole shin-dig is about in the firstplace.......

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2011, 06:47:57 PM »

I can't really see what, if anything, is all that heretical in these theologians' definition of the Trinity. I just don't understand why they think they need to rewrite tradition. Haven't we had a functional dogma of the Trinity since A.D. 325? Huh

The Nicene Creed says nothing one way or the other about subordination; the closest thing the west has to a definition against it is found in the Athanasian Creed, in which say in one place: "And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal." but then says further along that Jesus is "equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood." I gather that some Catholic writers want to cast the Eastern churches as subordinating the other Persons to the Father.

I looked at some of Giles's book, and it appears to be the sort of thing where you need to read quite a bit of to get where he is going. Giles is a conservative Anglican, so I would guess he takes the western approach above.

There is a tendency towards restorationism in evangelical thought, so they tend to fail to pay attention to the history of these arguments.
Logged
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2011, 07:33:38 PM »

Question: leaving aside the questionable language employed in the article, based on their statement, do you think these people would agree that the Father is the only divine person who is neither begotten nor proceeds from another?

Second question: if that alone [the unbegottenness of the Father] is admitted, does it not immediately follow that there is subordination in God in some sense?

Third question: if this type of subordination is admitted, does Arianism or Arianism-lite necessarily follow, as these people seem to be intimating?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2011, 07:34:03 PM »

There is a tendency towards restorationism in evangelical thought, so they tend to fail to pay attention to the history of these arguments.

This seems to be the cause of so many problems.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2011, 12:56:39 AM »

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?

The Holy Spirit reveals the Word (1 Corinthians 12:3, Matthew 16:17) who exegetes the Father (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15).

So the Holy Spirit is the First Person of the Trinity phenomenologically.






Spoiled it.  Grin
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 01:01:11 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2011, 02:04:46 AM »

Here's some Sabellianism in "mainstream protestantism" for you.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity-63436/

What was that about most Christians being able to recite the creed and mean it?

Shamelessly stolen from Father Anastasios.

Had no real trouble with the references to the statement itself, and it's meaning, at the onset. However, as I read and saw the agenda and confusion of equality and role I realized, at least for the individual being quoted, this was errant at best and disingenuous at worst. God is equal in persons, but has a functional hierarchy all the same. The Son is subject to the Father, but he is equally deity at the same time.

It's a shame, what could have been a tool for sound teaching and unity has been "agendized" (to coin a term) for secular notions of "equality" instead of biblical ones.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 02:05:52 AM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2011, 05:06:17 AM »

Here's some Sabellianism in "mainstream protestantism" for you.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity-63436/

What was that about most Christians being able to recite the creed and mean it?

Shamelessly stolen from Father Anastasios.

Had no real trouble with the references to the statement itself, and it's meaning, at the onset. However, as I read and saw the agenda and confusion of equality and role I realized, at least for the individual being quoted, this was errant at best and disingenuous at worst. God is equal in persons, but has a functional hierarchy all the same. The Son is subject to the Father, but he is equally deity at the same time.

It's a shame, what could have been a tool for sound teaching and unity has been "agendized" (to coin a term) for secular notions of "equality" instead of biblical ones.
I agree.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2011, 05:10:48 AM »

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?

The Holy Spirit reveals the Word (1 Corinthians 12:3, Matthew 16:17) who exegetes the Father (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15).

So the Holy Spirit is the First Person of the Trinity phenomenologically.






Spoiled it.  Grin
No, first they knew Him as the Creator who brought them out of Egypt and was over all other gods and would send a Messiah. Then they knew Christ who calls God His Father, then they knew the Comforter Jesus sent them when He went to His Father.

True, the Spirit is the first Person we interact with, but He does not testify of Himself but only what He hears.
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
akimori makoto
正義の剣
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2011, 05:16:10 AM »

Here's some Sabellianism in "mainstream protestantism" for you.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelicals-take-stand-on-trinity-63436/

What was that about most Christians being able to recite the creed and mean it?

Shamelessly stolen from Father Anastasios.

Had no real trouble with the references to the statement itself, and it's meaning, at the onset. However, as I read and saw the agenda and confusion of equality and role I realized, at least for the individual being quoted, this was errant at best and disingenuous at worst. God is equal in persons, but has a functional hierarchy all the same. The Son is subject to the Father, but he is equally deity at the same time.

It's a shame, what could have been a tool for sound teaching and unity has been "agendized" (to coin a term) for secular notions of "equality" instead of biblical ones.

I agree, Cleopas. The statement itself isn't so bad, but the content of the article is quite perturbing.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2011, 05:04:43 PM »

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?

The Holy Spirit reveals the Word (1 Corinthians 12:3, Matthew 16:17) who exegetes the Father (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15).

So the Holy Spirit is the First Person of the Trinity phenomenologically.






Spoiled it.  Grin
No, first they knew Him as the Creator who brought them out of Egypt and was over all other gods and would send a Messiah. Then they knew Christ who calls God His Father, then they knew the Comforter Jesus sent them when He went to His Father.

True, the Spirit is the first Person we interact with, but He does not testify of Himself but only what He hears.
Volnutt, you gotta get a sense of trollcasmony.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 05:05:07 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Protestant, for now...
Posts: 3,106


« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2011, 10:37:30 PM »

How did the Church (here I mean in terms of its human beginnings in the Garden, not from the moment of the creation of the noetic realm) come to know God as explicitly Trinitarian?

In what order?

The Holy Spirit reveals the Word (1 Corinthians 12:3, Matthew 16:17) who exegetes the Father (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15).

So the Holy Spirit is the First Person of the Trinity phenomenologically.






Spoiled it.  Grin
No, first they knew Him as the Creator who brought them out of Egypt and was over all other gods and would send a Messiah. Then they knew Christ who calls God His Father, then they knew the Comforter Jesus sent them when He went to His Father.

True, the Spirit is the first Person we interact with, but He does not testify of Himself but only what He hears.
Volnutt, you gotta get a sense of trollcasmony.
Yeah, it's always been hit or miss with me, even in person if you can imagine that lol. Maybe I'm lightly autistic...
Logged

I'm not posting on oc.net for the time being. Thank you to everyone for your support!
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,912


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2011, 11:08:18 PM »

I know what a troll is, but what is a casmony?

 Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 85 queries.