I repudiate any charge of ad hominem. I never intended to refer to your personal beliefs. This is only about your rendition of Rom 9:5.
Ambrose felt himself obliged to refute the obvious and yet impious meaning to the Trinitarian Rom 9:5, in favour of a qualified meaning to the words "above all;" but which qualified meaning the words don't themselves bear and which is why Paul wouldn't have written them in the first place (see also below re
Hippolytus).
OK a genuine mistake. The text on biblehub is convoluted by the lack of quotation and other indication marks around "For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us" reflecting that the words were said by Noetus.
However, even if I made a mistake over the identity of the speaker here, I made no mistake over the Trinitarian rendition of Rom 9:5 being useful for justifying Sabellianism. On this point, I was spot on.
Let's look at whether Hippolytus successfully refutes the Sabellian interpretation of theTrinitarian rendition of Rom 9:5
Both "Almighty" and "which is, and which was, and which is to come" are [also] titles of the Father, unambiguously. In Revelation, God is always distinguished from Jesus Christ. See:
Rev 11:16 "And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."
I'm not saying that Christ has not "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." I'm not say Christ can't be Almighty. I am saying that the context will never confound Christ with his Father, as Trinitarian Rom 9:5 does by denoting Christ as God.
Also, attributing Christ with the titles of the Father per Revelation isn't repudiating Noetus' charge of Sabellianism in Rom 9:5.
So as with Ambrose, Hippolytus is reduced to having to concede that the Trinitarian rendition of Rom 9:5 is open to a Sabellian interpretation, which must then be curtailed by further application of theology that lies well outside the passage in question.
It's not about what you believe. It's about what the natural meaning of your rendition is. I suggested in fact that your theology was of Ambrose, and for this reason you will have need to qualify, limit or restrict your Trinitarian Rom 9:5 by way of an apology for what it doesn't say, but should have said.
And this is why the grammarians say, there is nothing in the grammar, and it is all about the exegesis. But I think the grammar very strange for Paul whose preference for ὅς ἐστιν over ὁ ὢν is undeniable. It's just not what
Paul would have written if he had desired to say what you maintain, as per Rom 1:25 vis-a-vis the Creator.
Why can't you just concede the point that ὅς ἐστιν would have been expected for such a radical statement of theology, made nowhere else?
Not strange at all. There is nothing strange about ὁ ὢν as a subtantive in the context of θεὸς.
There is a need to maintain consistency with other doxologies, and this is where you thesis falls. If there were others where your interpretation prevails, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. But there is no other place where your interpretation is found. There is no precedent. Hard passages don't make for good precedents.
And we know how the Trinitarians liked Rom 9:5
for appearing to refute Arianism, the mode of the day. But the true refutation of Arianism was by repudiating the idea of the Logos being begotten (the Logos isn't recorded as being begotten). They couldn't do this as it was anathema for the ECFs to give up on their begotten "God the Son".
Rom 9:5 was the wrong refutation. The problems with the ECF brand of Trinitarianism post Nicea became too deep rooted by the fusion with Greek philosophy, which is why Arianism became so prevalent.
Those were the days where they needed your Rom 9:5 to refute Arianism. That Arianism arose at all is an indication that many didn't see Rom 9:5 in your sense.
