The Orthodox concept of Monarchy of the Father is crypto-Arianism. Fact.


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

The Orthodox concept of Monarchy of the Father is crypto-Arianism. Fact.

  1. 2 months ago
    JWanon

    Arius was right

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Arius had sex with men

      • 2 months ago
        JWanon

        I didn't say he was right about everything

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      *complete equality

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The nicene creed says nothing about co-equality
      >homoousian

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 2 months ago
      JWanon

      Define orthodox

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not Orthodox doctrine? Source?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        Define orthodox

        In this context, I'm speaking of Eastern Orthodox

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Monarchy of the father is one of the main the reasons for the Filioque controversy

          • 2 months 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:

            • 2 months 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.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Arius made more sense than your mumbo jumbo

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Catholic concept of the Filioque is crypto-Modalism. Fact.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do ortholarpers insist on embarrassing themselves

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 2 months 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).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *