Roman Catholicism has a doctrine of "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound" in regards "elohiym" - show 1 verse in scripture which teaches it.

[ReChoired]

Roman Catholicism has a doctrine of "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound" in regards "elohiym" - show 1 verse in scripture which teaches it.

This thread and poll is not about denying the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying the eternal Deity of the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying, in any way, the idea of the Three, the eternal Heavenly Trio, the Threefold chord of Godhead.

The thread and poll is specific. Deal with the topic or do not post at all.

 

[ScottA]

Roman Catholicism has a doctrine of "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound" in regards "elohiym" - show 1 verse in scripture which teaches it.

This thread and poll is not about denying the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying the eternal Deity of the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying, in any way, the idea of the Three, the eternal Heavenly Trio, the Threefold chord of Godhead.

The thread and poll is specific. Deal with the topic or do not post at all.

I don't know of the doctrine, nor do I actually know what it is meant to mean. But perhaps, they mean this:

John 17:11-26
“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

 

[ReChoired]

I don't know of the doctrine, nor do I actually know what it is meant to mean. But perhaps, the mean this:

John 17:11-26
“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Excellent try, but that is not what "una substantia", nor "perfectly one superabound" means definitionally according to Roman Catholicism. If John 17:22 were to teach "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound", it would teach that the disciples (Apostles) themselves are of the same nature (substance) of Elohiym, and would not be distinct (separate) from that nature.

Please do not forget to vote, and thank you again for the reply.

 

[ScottA]

Excellent try, but that is not what "una substantia", nor "perfectly one superabound" means definitionally according to Roman Catholicism. If John 17:22 were to teach "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound", it would teach that the disciples (Apostles) themselves are of the same nature (substance) of Elohiym, and would not be distinct (separate) from that nature.

Please do not forget to vote, and thank you again for the reply.

There is nothing "separate" about "one."

This a common point of confusion about what is written regarding God and the "Oneness" that Christ prayed for. The answer and example is not according to much of the words written regarding what followed the fall, but was rather an "image" according to whom God first "created." Most people commonly consider the oneness as meaning "unity", sighting many examples that actually do not apply. To the contrary, the "image" of oneness created in Adam is literally one (not unity), out of which came the lessor "image" of Eve those born of women. Which was stated as the two becoming "one flesh" that did not actually occur following Adam because of the fall...until the One of whom it was written should come; and so He prayed.

 

[ReChoired]

There is nothing "separate" about "one."

This a common point of confusion about what is written regarding God and the "Oneness" that Christ prayed for. The answer and example is not according to much of the words written regarding what followed the fall, but was rather an "image" according to whom God first "created." Most people commonly consider the oneness as meaning "unity", sighting many examples that actually do not apply. To the contrary, the "image" of oneness created in Adam is literally one (not unity), out of which came the lessor "image" of Eve those born of women. Which was stated as the two becoming "one flesh" that did not actually occur following Adam because of the fall...until the One of whom it was written should come; and so He prayed.

You misunderstood the OP, and what I stated in reply. The OP is about the specific Roman Catholic dogma of "una substantia" (one substance), not the phrase in John 17.

 

[ScottA]

You misunderstood the OP, and what I stated in reply. The OP is about the specific Roman Catholic dogma of "una substantia" (one substance), not the phrase in John 17.

Do they not say they got it from John 17?

 

[ReChoired]

Do they not say they got it from John 17?

No, they got it from Tertullian.

 

[ScottA]

No, they got it from Tertullian.

Okay, but why reject it if the idea is in accord with John 17, and Tertullian has found treasure in a field?

 

[Lambano]

Can you add a category in the poll, "At least 'Una Substantia' sounds cooler than 'Homoousia'"?

 

[Lambano]

I will just add that the doctrine of homoousia (or Una Substantia) was inferred because it is logically necessary to reconcile what the Bible says about Jesus's Divinity with the non-negotiable principle of monotheism. Otherwise, we would have to admit that the Bible is self-contradictory and then we'd have to chuck out the principle of Verbal Plenary Inspiration. Or abandon the rules of logic that have served us well since Aristotle. And very few people here seem to be willing to do that.

 

[ReChoired]

Can you add a category in the poll, "At least 'Una Substantia' sounds cooler than 'Homoousia'"?

The Poll can have only so many responses, and there is no more room, and I would not add that statement, even if I had room. Changing from Latin to Greek does not aide the conversation, any more than changing locations from this forum to another, and continuing.

The problem with "una substantia" of the corrupted Latins (not the pure Latins), is that it doesn't just deal with the persons/beings of the Father, and of the Son, but also includes the Holy Spirit, theologically, and thus the problem arises.

That the Son is of the same nature ('substance') as the Father is not in question. That is a scriptural teaching, by the very words, of the Father, monon alethinon theon, and the Son, the monogenes, theos en o logos, the very 'charakter' of the Father's own person. If that were all the theology of 'una substantia' taught, it would be fine, but it isn't all that it claims to preach.

"Perfectly one superabound" even goes further into error, bringing that which is truly trio, into singularity.

The Bible is silent on the nature of the Holy Ghost. It is a mystery reserved. (I am not speaking about the Bible identifying the Holy Ghost's personhood, personality, existence, eternality, character, differentiated from the person/being of the Father and the Son, etc, but I am only speaking of one thing, and one thing only, 'una substantia').

 

[ReChoired]

Okay, but why reject it if the idea is in accord with John 17, and Tertullian has found treasure in a field?

You are off on a non-sequitur tangent that has nothing (no thing) to do with the OP. John 17:21 has nothing to do with the topic. John 17:21-23 deals not with "substance" (nature), but rather with 'heart/spiritual' (togetherness of mind).

 

[Lambano]

The problem with "una substantia" of the corrupted Latins (not the pure Latins), is that it doesn't just deal with the persons/beings of the Father, and of the Son, but also includes the Holy Spirit, theologically, and thus the problem arises ....
That the Son is of the same nature ('substance') as the Father is not in question. ..."Perfectly one superabound" even goes further into error, bringing that which is truly trio, into singularity. ... The Bible is silent on the nature of the Holy Ghost. It is a mystery reserved. (I am not speaking about the Bible identifying the Holy Ghost's personhood, personality, existence, eternality, character, differentiated from the person/being of the Father and the Son, etc, but I am only speaking of one thing, and one thing only, 'una substantia').

Ah. So this falls into the category of "Bi" vs. "Tri" - which is a topic we are not permitted to discuss.

But while the moderators are looking the other way....

The counterargument would be that "God is spirit" (John 3:24), the nature of the Holy Spirit is spirit by definition, so therefore it is easier to argue the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father than the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Then the question of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit and whether it (He? She?) is separate from the personhood of the Father comes into play. With the Father and the Son, the difficulties are reversed; the Father and Son clearly relate to each other in the Biblical narratives as separate Persons. Consubstantiality is harder to demonstrate.

But I have no idea what the hell is REALLY going on at that level of existence. (If I'm going to get a warning for discussing non-permitted topics, I might as well get one for swearing too. In for a penny, in for a pound. I hope the mods are feeling merciful.) I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what's happening in the here and now. So, I'm comfortable with appealing to Mystery.

 

[ScottA]

You are off on a non-sequitur tangent that has nothing (no thing) to do with the OP. John 17:21 has nothing to do with the topic. John 17:21-23 deals not with "substance" (nature), but rather with 'heart/spiritual' (togetherness of mind).

So is light a non-sequitur annoyance to darkness. Seems your agenda is more important to you. So be it.

 

[ReChoired]

Ah. So this falls into the category of "Bi" vs. "Tri" - which is a topic we are not permitted to discuss.

Actually no. The OP is clear. The topic is specifically and only about the erroneous doctrine of "una substantia" and "perfectly one superabound", or the nature, not questioning the numerical (3, or eternal Heavenly Trio).

 

[ReChoired]

So is light a non-sequitur annoyance to darkness. Seems your agenda is more important to you. So be it.

No, the topic you want to discuss is fine elsewhere to engage in, but just not for this thread. The topic is specific to what was given in the OP, and I do not desire to have it sidelined, as I think it is important on it's own.

 

[ScottA]

No, the topic you want to discuss is fine elsewhere to engage in, but just not for this thread. The topic is specific to what was given in the OP, and I do not desire to have it sidelined, as I think it is important on it's own.

You asked the question:

"Does the Bible teach Roman Catholicism's doctrine of "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound"?"​

​

I answered it (with scripture).

 

[MatthewG]

I like to use the Bible myself, there was a recent study which was done recently here is the reference if you are curious: Who is the Word of God, the Word of Life? - is a website link to this site.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Roman Catholicism has a doctrine of "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound" in regards "elohiym" - show 1 verse in scripture which teaches it.

This thread and poll is not about denying the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying the eternal Deity of the Persons/Beings of the Father, and of the Son (Jesus Christ), and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

This thread and poll is not about denying, in any way, the idea of the Three, the eternal Heavenly Trio, the Threefold chord of Godhead.

The thread and poll is specific. Deal with the topic or do not post at all.

I tried to look up these phrases but didn’t find much. I think the first one means “one substance?” So I take that to mean in terms of God and Jesus being one? As for Elohim, it’s plural of course. So one verse that supports Elohim, the plural God, being one God or substance would be “I and the Father are one.” Another would be, “if you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”
Is that along the lines of what you were looking for?