In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>But this is a non-sequitur. Not only that, it is false. As Steve
>already pointed
>>out, both Ignatius and Irenaeus clearly spoke of Trinity.
>
>Steve didn't pint out any such thing.

Yes, he did.

> You guys are READING the trinity
>into what they wrote

No, we are not. We are reading what Ignatius wrote, carefully and in the context
both of the whole letter he wrote and in the context of the time he wrote in.
You have yet to do either.

> and that is the point Matthew.

And the 'point' was WRONG. It was based on half-quotes and groundless claims of
tampering wiht the text of Ignatius.

> It was NOT the trinity that you believe in

Yes, it was.

> because THE trinity was not formed until the 3rd Century.

This is pure fiction.

> Neither of you has yet to disprove this.

Actually, Steve has disproved it. But you countered by making the ridiculous
claim that the text of Ignatius he relied on had Trinitarian interpolations.

> Quoting
>Ignatius and Irenaeus as "proof" they believed in the trinity is wrong.

No, it isn't. On the contrary: it is completely right.

>They didn't:

So you love to repeat. But you do so groundlessly. They did believe in Trinity.

>Even if Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in
>eternity, power, position, and wisdom, it would still not be a Trinity,
>for nowhere did he say that the holy spirit was equal to God in those
>ways.

You miss the point: once you realize -- if you realize -- that the Son is
consubstantial to the Father, then it follows that the Spirit is also
consubstantial. One thing at a time!

> But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father
>in such ways or in any other.

Yes, he did. Steve already gave you the citations.

> Instead, he showed that the Son is in
>subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God.

What? So do you believe that 'subjection' implies inferiority? Then you really
have missed the whole point of Christ's humility: that He who "considered it not
robbery to be equal to God, emptied Himself and accepted the form of a servant
(Php 2:6-7)".

>Ignatius calls Almighty God "the only true God, the unbegotten and
>unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the
>only-begotten Son," showing the distinction between God and His Son.

This shows a distinction, yes. And that distinction _is_ a central part of the
doctrine of the Trinity.

>He speaks of "God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." And he
>declares: "There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself
>by Jesus Christ His Son."

And if, as you say, God is the only true God, and Jesus is created, then _how_
was God manifested by Jesus?

>******Ignatius shows that the SON WAS NOT ETERNAL AS A PERSON BUT WAS
>CREATED,

No, that is not what he says.

>for he has the Son saying: "The Lord [Almighty God] created
>Me, the beginning of His ways."*****

In case you did not notice, he is quoting Proverbs 8:22 here. And Proverbs, when
it says "create Me the beginning of His ways", is using this verb 'create
(ktizw)' as a synonym for APPOINT. An alternative translation that would have
been JUST as good is, "The Lord [Almighty God] appointed Me the beginning of His
ways".

It was only later, under the influence of Trinitarian theology, that KTIZW was
used exclusively to mean 'create'. So no, you cannot claim that Ignatius meant
to call Christ 'created' by using the word KTIZW here.

> Similarly, Ignatius said: "There is one God of the universe, the
>Father of Christ, 'of whom are all things;' and one Lord Jesus
>Christ, our Lord, 'by whom are all things.'"

And how could you miss the implication of these words? Both the Father and
Christ are involved in the creation of ALL things: all are of the Father, and by
the Son. Therefore the Son could not be created.

>13 He also writes:
>
>"The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ,
>. . . even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received
>from the Father. For, says He [the Son], 'the word which ye hear is
>not Mine, but the Father's, who sent Me.'"14
>
>"There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his
>Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect
>pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the
>Father."15

And there is nothing in either of these passages that contradicts Trinity. On
the contrary: they express one of the most important doctrines of the Trinity,
that there is one will in the Trinity, the will of the Father. The submission of
the Son and the Spirit to that will is perfect.

>True, Ignatius calls the Son "God the Word." But using the word
>"God" for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty
>God.

But neither does it deny it. So you have no grounds for claiming that he did not
teach Trinity.

> The Bible also calls the Son "God" at Isaiah 9:6.

Why, yes, Isaiah does. That is why we sing these verses at Christmas, the feast
of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

> John 1:18
>calls the Son "the only-begotten god." Being vested with power and
>authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be
>termed a "mighty one," which is what "god" basically
>means.-Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2.

No, the word means much more than that, especially as applied to Christ. This is
shown by the equality between the Father and the Son shown by passages in John,
such as:

   He who sees Me sees the Father. How can you say,
   "show us the Father"? Do you not believe, that I am
   in the Father, and the Father is in Me? (Jn 14:9-10)

This is not only 'equality' it is equality with reciprocity, and of a very
special type, unlike _anything_ among created things. That is why we say not
only that the Son is equal to the Father, but that He is _perfectly_ equal to
Him. So that worship of the Son _is_ worship of the Father, which is why we are
commanded:

   that all honor the Son as they honor the Father;
   he who does not honor the Son, fails to honor the
   Father who sent Him (Jn 5:23).

But what honor do we give the Father? Why, worship of course. So that is what we
are commanded to give the Son as well.


>>No, it is not. You haven't read any history of the Liturgy, have you?
>
>Which "liturgy" are you referring too?

THE liturgy. I am referring, of course, to the history of the Liturgy in the
first 4 centuries.

> Are you catholic?

If by that you mean _Roman_ Catholic, no. But in the relevant period, there was
no distinction: for Rome had not yet presumed to set herself up as judge over
the entire Catholic Church we confess in the Nicene Creed, when we say, "and in
one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".


-- 
---------------------------
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} 3/22/05 4:00:27 PM ---