======== Continued From Previous Message ==========

d "the subtraction of deity."

And he is right. Leo showed the same many centuries ahead of him.

> The enfleshed Logos simply "added humanity." Since Ryrie believes
>that Christ possessed absolute Deity in heaven, he subsequently
>argues that the Messiah was wholly Deity during his
>incarnation.

And rightly so! This is what was revealed on the mountain top during
the Transfiguration. The glory which Christ had had all that time was
only then revealed to James, John and Peter.

> Ryrie thus vigorously contends that Christ did not give
>up any of his divine attributes when he emptied himself in order to
>become a man. To relinquish any of his divine attributes would
>suggest that Christ was not the God-man during his relatively brief
>sojourn with humanity (a view utterly unthinkable for Ryrie).

And it should be unthinkable for you, since it _is_ unthinkable!

>I must say at the outset that I vehemently disagree with Ryrie on the
>definition of kenoo and its relevance to Phil 2:7.

No surprise there.

>Greek writings
>utilize kenoo to delineate the effecting of a complete emptiness, void,
>or an absolute negation.

Such radical emptying is not the ONLY use of the verb...

>In addition, writers of sacred literature
>employ kenos to describe vainglory, groundless self esteem, and empty
>pride (Phil 2:3, 4 Macc 2:15).

True, but this is the adjective, not the verb. The adjective and the
verb are from the same root, but that does not mean they that each can
only derive the same meanings from the root as the other does.

>The LXX uses kenos to describe abject emptiness or complete negation
>(cf. Gen 31:42, Deut 15:13; Job 22:9).

Once again, as you have done _so_ often in your brief time in this NG,
you are stringing together a list of citation that do NOT even support
you!

How, for example do you get _abject_ emptiness out of Gen 31:42? All
it says is:

   If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac,
   had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away
   empty-handed. God saw my affliction and the labor of my hands, and
   rebuked you last night."  (Gen 31:42 RSVA)

'Empty-handed' is NOT "abject emptiness".

>Kenodozos also specifies:
>"glorying without reason, conceit, or eagerness for empty glory" (Gal.
>5:26).[38] Simply put, kenoo may convey the sense, "to empty"
or "make
>empty." Thayer therefore understands Phil 2:7 to mean that Christ
>"laid aside equality with the form (external appearance) of God." Thus
>Christ was made void: emptied (negated) as regards his being en morphe
>theou. He completely divested himself of his spirit nature and the
>outward form wherewith he subsisted in the presence of God:

Thayer may have thought that. But that is just an example of how
Thayer set aside all the wisdom that he _might_ have learned from his
scholarship, and chose to be wise in his own sight instead. For no, it
is simply FALSE that "Christ was made void".

>The verb kenoun requires an object to be expressed which is understood.

This is absolute nonsense.

>Those who believe that Christ possesses equality with God in his
>preexistence naturally urge that Christ emptied himself of his
>equality. However, my explanation of vs. 6 has ruled out this
>possibility (Wannamaker 188).

And his 'explanation' was bunk. Perhaps that is why you like it so much.

>No, Christ did not empty himself of ontological equality with God. In
>fact, he was never consubstantial with his Father in the first place.

No, this is where you boldly contradict Scripture itself in so many
places! Of _course_ he was and is consubstantial to the Father. Even
the Fathers of the Synod of Antioch in 341 whom you quote concering
'kenosis' insisted on this.

>Therefore, when Christ emptied himself of existing in God's form, he
>simply stopped subsisting in the external form (outward appearance) of
>God.
>
>Now just what does this statement imply?

It implies monstrous heresy. It also implies contradiction with the
language of Scripture itself, rationalized by pretending you know
Hellenistic Greek better than the highly educated native speakers I
have already quoted and referenced.

[snip]

>What can we therefore extract from this survey of kenotic opinions?

We can extract that you have been extremely prejudicial in your choice
of which 'scholars' to believe and cite. We can extract that you do
this out of a burning desire to deny the Scriptures and believe heresy
instead. Other than that, there is not much we can extract from such a
badly done survey.

[snip]

>A brief look at the Ante-Nicene Fathers demonstrates their affirmation
>of God's inimitable self-existent nature. One patristic who elucidated
>the notion of God's aseity was Athenagoras. In his writings,
>Athenagoras affirms a God who is "uncreated, eternal, invisible,
>impassible, incomprehensible, and infinite," one "who created and
>now rules the world through the Logos who issues from him" (Embassy For
>the Christians 10.1). Further showing that God is esse a se,
>Athenagoras transcendently proclaims that "God is in himself all things
>to himself: inaccessible light, a complete world, spirit, power,
>reason" (Embassy 16.1). True, Athenagoras' words are tinged with
>Platonic concepts. Yet they beautifully delineate the self-existent
>character of God.
>
>At this point, however, certain readers will probably disagree
>vehemently with the conclusion that I extract from the words of
>Athenagoras. 'Athenagoras was a Trinitarian,' some will ardently
>insist. Are these sentiments true, however?

Of course they are true. And they are more than just 'sentiments',
too. If you did not again resort to the dishonest device of
prejudically selective citation, this would be obvious.

Why, for example, if not because of your dishonesty, did you stop with
Embassy 16.1? Why, the very same work blows your conclusion to
pieces with:

   10.1 We recognise then even the Son of God. Nor do we consider it
   ridiculous for God to have a Son. Nor, though, do we think about
   God and Father or about the Son as do the poets composing myths,
   who make the gods no better than men. But the Son of God is the
   Word of the Father in idea and operation; for from Him and through
   Him are all things made, although the Father and Son are
   one. Although the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father,
   in unity and power of spirit, the mind and Word of the Father is
   the Son of God.But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs
   to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly
   that He is the first progeny of the Father, not as having been made
   (for from eternity God had in Himself the Word as from all eternity
   rational), but that He came forth to be the idea and energizing
   power of all material things, which lay like a nature without
   attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being
   mixed up with the lighter.


So yes, he says God has a Son, but that this does NOT mean the same as
for Zeus to have a son! And he takes a stab at describing the
difference between the pagan notion of "son of god" and the Christian
notion of "Son of God". But he describes it only in a thumbnail sketch.

But he _does_ describe the Son and Spirit as consubstantial to the
Father, confirming the Trinitarian interpretaion of these passages
(allued to above) in John. And as if this was not clear enough, we
also have:

   24. To the extent that we call 'God' both the Son His word, and the
   Holy Spirit, united according to power, we call 'God' the Father
   and Son and Holy Spirit, because the Son is the mind, word and
   wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit is an outpouring, like light
   from fire, from the Father.


So at one moment, Athenagoras recognizes them as distinct, but at
another time and in another way, as identical. And he calls Father,
Son and Holy Spirit ALL one God! This IS the Trinity! But he still
uses metaphors that are misleading or unworthy of the Trinity, such as
'outpouring', which make the Spirit sound like a substance, not a
Person. It was to address such deficiencies in language that the 4th
century language for the Trinity (e.g. 'consubstantial', one essence,
three persons) was developed.

But note well! He used a metaphor that _sounds_ like the Holy Spirit
is not a person, but he never _said_ He was not a Person.

But that has never stopped you from claiming that he did. This
stubborn insistence on nonsense is where you prove yourself guilty of
the accusation you raise against us: you insist on seeing your own
theology in passages where it is WHOLLY ABSENT!

>In the theological model espoused by Athenagoras, the Logos is not on
>par with the Father: The Logos is God's "ideal form" and
"energizing
>power" that gives shape and order to the kosmos. The Logos is not fully
>divine (or fully Deity) in Athenagoras' eyes (neither is the Holy
>Spirit a third "Person" in Athenagorean theology).

Oh let us never never doubt, what nobody is sure about! Why are _you_
so sure that "ideal form" implies "not on a par"? And
no, Athenagoras
did NOT say that the Holy Spirit is not a third Person. He doesn't
answer this question at all, only hinting 'yes' at one point and
'maybe not' at another.

But you, of course, see only what you want to see, so you misread him
as supporting your badly perverted theology.

>To the contrary,
>Athenagoras regarded the Holy Spirit as "an effluence of God which
>flows forth from him and returns like a ray of the sun." Of course, we
>cannot deny that Athenagoras spoke of God the Father, the Logos, and
>the Holy Spirit subsisting in simultaneous unity and diversity.

But you _have_ denied it. For you denied that the Son is co-eternal
with the Father. But this co-eternity follows from Athenagoras. For
when was the Father ever without His mind or Wisdom?

>Athenagoras, however, not only worshiped God and His Logos; he also
>included "angels" in his theologia as beings worthy of worship (Embassy
>10.1ff). This fact suggests that Athenagoras undoubtedly had a very
>broad view of what constitutes a "god" (as did Justin Martyr).

What are you talking about? He mentions other powers, he mentions that
they are involved in _governing_ creation, but he says NOTHING about
worhipping them.

Yet again, 'Blue', you have made a mockery of scholarly procedure,
pretending to be scholarly with your numerous citations, even
including some badly mis-spelled Greek, only to ruin it all with
eisegesis, reading into the text your own theology, which is NOT
there.

>With the foregoing in mind, what are we to conclude about Athenagoras'
>theologia?

We are to conclude that you have completely misrepresented it. You
have committed the same 'eisegesis' on Athenagoras that you commit on
the Scriptures themselves.

[snip]

>Despite the foregoing, some thinkers have tried to solve the problems
>presented in this essay by positing the Father's dependence on the Son
>and the Holy Spirit.

But that is a stupid attempt. Anyone who seriously thinks that that
can 'solve' anything is too ignorant or dense to deserve the title
'thinker'.

> That is, some theologues

In _modern_ US English, a 'theologue' is NOT a theologian, a
'theologue' is a _student_ of theology. And judging from the examples
you have put forth, I would say a very bad student.

> contend that each Person
>in the Godhead is dependent on the other two divine Persons.
>Nevertheless, theologians in Eastern Christendom have traditionally
>viewed the idea of the Father being dependent upon the Son or Holy
>Spirit with repugnance and I am not so sure Western theologians
>generally accept this stance either.

If you are not sure, then WHY are you bringing it up? Why couldn't you
do your homework before you posted?

>Rightly (mutatis mutandis), Greek
>Orthodox theologians have generally viewed the Father as the pele

There IS no such word in Greek. Will you stop pretending you know the langauge?

>[source], the arche [principle], and the aitia [cause] of the Godhead.
>In the eyes of these eminent authorities:

Finally, you recognize their eminence. What a pity you only do so
sarcastically.

>The Trinity [is] a unity only if "both the Son and the Spirit are led
>forth from one cause, the Father"; any other theory [is]
"blasphemy"
>and a resurgence of the godlessness of polytheism . . . in the guise of
>Christianity." Although the Son and Spirit, as well as the Father, were
>without beginning, they did nevertheless have a single cause within the
>Godhead, namely, the Father, who had no cause distinct from Himself.
>Dionysius the Areopagite had taught that "the Father is the only source
>of the supersubstantial Godhead; The Trinity could be compared to a
>balance scale, in which there was a single operation and center (the
>Father), upon which the other two arms (Son and Holy Spirit) both
>depended. (Pelikan 2:197)
>
>Eastern theologians have generally not been able to tolerate the
>position that contends the Father has vital need of the Son or Holy
>Spirit since the Father is considered to be the singular principle in
>the Godhead (Burgess 2:50-51).

Why did you so quickly switch from a knowledgeable source to such a
poor source? Pelikan got it right, Burgess is confused.

> What is more, John 5:26 indicates that
>the Father has life in himself independent of any other Person.
>Consequently, while the Grecian view of the Godhead eradicates some of
>the problems that plague the Western Trinity, it still fails to explain
>the concept of derived aseity in the Godhead in a satisfactory manner.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this is because the term
"derived aseity" is a nonsensical notion in the first place?

[snip]


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/27/05 8:46:22 AM ---