LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_fa927c0a-1760-5b56-901c-57febec29c61">31. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 3, 29.

32. Swete, On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 63.

33. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love, 55.

34. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 31.

35. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ, 5:519.

36. Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, XL:41.

37. Ibid., V:3.

38. Ibid., V:4.

39. Ibid., V:10.

40. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love, 57.

41. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 97–98.

42. Frame states that “Lord is the name God gives to himself as head of the Mosaic Covenant and the name given to Jesus Christ as head of the New Covenant” and cites the following Scriptures as examples: Exod 3:13–15; 6:1–8; 20:1–2; John 8:58; Acts 2:36; Rom 14:9 (Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 11–12). Lord” (Yahweh in Hebrew, kyrios in Greek) is also the name given in the New Testament to the exalted Christ (Acts 2:36; Rom 14:9) and to the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17–18).

43. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 13 (emphasis his).

44. Frame adds, “It is important to see the three lordship attributes as forming a unit, not as separate from one another. God is ‘simple’ in the theological sense (not compounded of parts), so there is a sense in which if you have one attribute you have them all” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 17). Frame does interrelate these attributes further: “God’s control, according to Scripture, involves authority, for God controls even the structure of truth and rightness. . . . Authority involves control, for God’s commands presuppose His full ability to enforce them. Authority involves presence, for God’s commands are clearly revealed and are the means by which God acts in our midst to bless and curse. . . . Presence involves authority, for God is never present apart form His Word” (17–18). Nevertheless, these three critical attributes can and should be discerned when God’s “Lordship” is revealed in Scripture, so that divine authority might not be confused with divine power or presence, particularly when discerning divine “authority” within the world or church community (15–18).

45. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 15–16.

46. Ibid., 17.

47. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority, 271, 299.

48. Ibid., 190.

49. Ibid., 58.

50. I would argue that Arian pneumatology not only sought to strip the Spirit of divinity, but, perhaps even more so, of divine authority. This intention seems apparent in various metaphors and conciliation: the Arian analogy of the Father, Son, and Spirit to gold, silver, and brass makes the Spirit seem inferior. According to Swete, Eunomius’ reference to the Spirit as a created Person implies that “Spirit” remains “destitute indeed of Deity and of creative power” (Swete, On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 62).

51. As we shall see in the subsequent theological periods, such a parameter seems to provide a very specific limitation upon further discussion. The Medieval Church, for example, will require that subsequent investigations into the nature and work of the Spirit in relation to Christ conform to this foundational doctrine. Postmodern theology, on the other hand, will often violate this fundamental limitation.

52. Badcock concedes, “Although one had to admit . . . the fact that any creed must be economical in order to be functional, a great deal about the work of the Spirit—about the relation between Spirit and Church, for example—has been left unsaid. Perhaps this is wise, as doctrinal definition is intended to point the way rather than to exhaust all possibilities, but perhaps it also reflects a general uncertainty concerning the Spirit’s role in human salvation and in the spiritual life” (Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love, 61).

53. Could it be that the Spirit’s Lordship—his control and authority—are more recognizable in Scripture that his divinity? A brief perusal of pertinent Old Testament and New Testament passages seems to demonstrate this to be the case, but it also seems that, in Scripture, the Spirit’s divinity is extrapolated, in part, from his divine authority.

54. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son,” and was inserted into the Nicene Creed after the statement, “I believe . . . in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.”

55. Ramm, The Evangelical Heritage, 17.

56. Inch, Saga of the Spirit, 221.

57. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3:xvi.

58. Berman, Law and Revolution, 167–68.

59. Ibid., 168.

60. Ibid., 169.

61. Charlemagne tried to have it formally confirmed at Frankfurt (794). He was attempting to correct the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which had received the profession of Tarasius, who stated that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father per (‘through’) the Son.” The two Churches remained in communion through these challenges. It wasn’t until Florence, when the East felt it views were unrepresented, that the departure become official.

62. Berman, Law and Revolution, 105.

63.

Скачать книгу