Diet of Worms
28.02.202518:58
24.02.202520:08
The Reformed do have a serious problem on Christology, and mostly on the Genus Maiestaticum. I'll drop something soon. Stay tuned.
24.02.202518:08
"[T]he Only-Begotten, through His own flesh [διὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς], is wholly and indivisibly present in all, existing everywhere [ὑπάρχων πανταχοῦ]. For in no way has He been divided, as Paul cries out." - Theophylact, Comm. on John 19, (MPG 124:277)
20.02.202518:11
Dear "Christian Nationalists", this is a reminder that we all are pilgrims on this earth.
"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
#itsthattimeagain
"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."
#itsthattimeagain
15.02.202518:55
“Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” - St. Peter, I Pet. 2:17 NKJV
Қайта жіберілді:
Diet of Worms
05.03.202515:05
Ash Wednesday
What is it? https://t.me/Augsburg1517/335?single
What is it? https://t.me/Augsburg1517/335?single
27.02.202506:12
More than preserving your own race, preserve the fellowship and the Gospel. Do that first, at least.
24.02.202518:25
“The [Genus Maiestaticum] is that by which the divine nature of the Son communicates its own, proper glory and excellence to the human nature, while it remains free of the sufferings of the flesh.” - Johann Gerhard, Exegesis, Loc. 4, § 201 (p. 203)
“The [GM] is from Nature to Nature, which is the communication of τῶν αὐχημάτων [of excellences], and it is called Majesty, as well as μετάδοσις [impartation], and it concerns ἐνεργητικά [energetic] or operative attributes, but not ἀνενεργητά [non-energetic] or those lacking operation.” - Abraham Calov, Systema VII, art. 3, ch. 4 (p. 298)
“The [GM] is from Nature to Nature, which is the communication of τῶν αὐχημάτων [of excellences], and it is called Majesty, as well as μετάδοσις [impartation], and it concerns ἐνεργητικά [energetic] or operative attributes, but not ἀνενεργητά [non-energetic] or those lacking operation.” - Abraham Calov, Systema VII, art. 3, ch. 4 (p. 298)
22.02.202509:49
20.02.202506:32
15.02.202507:09
A Response to Gavin Ortlund on Lutheran Christology
https://youtu.be/TlifUvEqfkE?si=6rS1Lkug8ZbjUjIA
https://youtu.be/TlifUvEqfkE?si=6rS1Lkug8ZbjUjIA
05.03.202509:08
“[T]he Law hold[s] a sword’s severity, as the tutor does his rod, in order to awe by threatening punishment of the weakness of an imperfect people. Yet, the Gospel has a gentleness by which sins are forgiven.” - St. Ambrose, Ep 68 to Clementianus
27.02.202506:10
Daily reminder: Most Kinists or/and z"Christian Nationalists" believe that one race or foreign people are more sinful and are engaged into immoral acts, relative to their own race. Rather than attributing the sinful acts to the flawed nature of human beings that need redemption and the gospel, they associate it with race and genetics. Have a good day!
24.02.202518:15
Question LIII. In what manner of communication did the flesh of Christ become a participant in the divine attributes?
The manner of communication by which the flesh of Christ became a participant in the divine operative attributes is not effective, by duplication (a), nor transitory or transfusive (b), nor equalizing (c), nor overthrowing or destructive of human nature (d), but rather, it is entelechial and perichoretic (e), not by subjective inherence (f), but by common possession, usage, and denomination (g).
Proof a. There is not a double omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and glory in Christ, but rather, the same glory that the divine nature of the Logos has from eternity, the assumed flesh received in time, as stated in John 17:5, just as the body has the same life that the soul has.
Proof b. The attributes of the Son of God are communicated to the humanity in such a way that they always remain properties of the divine nature and never become properties of the human nature. For they do not depart from the hypostasis of the Word and migrate or pass into the human nature as into a subject; rather, the humanity, having been assumed into the communion of the person by God the Word, has at the same time also been made a participant in the divine nature and its properties. Nor does it receive them in itself as in a subject, so that they become its own properties, but it possesses them in the person of the Word by a real communication.
Proof c. For equalization, the communication of the same thing is not sufficient, but in addition, the same mode of possessing it is required; and this is different with respect to God and the Son of God than it is with respect to the flesh: the former possesses majesty through eternal generation, the latter through the grace of union. Hence, even today, Christ, as man, is less than the Father (1 Cor. 15:28), because the divine attributes that He has received, He possesses by grace (Phil. 2:9).
Proof d. Through the communication of attributes, human nature is not abolished or destroyed; rather, it is adorned and perfected for the function of the mediatorial office. For the fullness of divinity inhabits the body of Christ as its own temple, not to overthrow it but to illuminate it.
Proofs e. & f. The internal and perfect union of two substances, which are indeed essentially distinct yet intimately conjoined, one possessing the nature of ὲντελεχείας (i.e., a perfecting act), the other of δυνάμεως (i.e., a capacity for perfection), necessarily entails the communication of attributes. These attributes inhere subjectively in the more excellent, uncreated substance, while the other participates in them through common possession, usage, and denomination. For example, life and sensitive faculties inhere in the soul and express themselves through the body’s members. Fire is present in iron, yet it burns and shines through the glowing iron. Regarding specifically the divine attributes of the Logos, since they are not qualities or accidents, they do not inhere in any subject as a mode of inherence. Nevertheless, their first and immediate subject of attribution, to which they formally and inherently belong, is the divine nature of the Son of God. The second and mediate subject of attribution, to which they pertain by participation and by the grace of personal union [per unionis personalis gratiam], is the human nature.
Proof g. The ἐνεργητικὰ [energetic] divine attributes dwell in the flesh of Christ as in their proper temple, operate through the flesh as through an instrument hypostatically united, and are predicated of the flesh as its second or mediate subject of attribution.
The manner of communication by which the flesh of Christ became a participant in the divine operative attributes is not effective, by duplication (a), nor transitory or transfusive (b), nor equalizing (c), nor overthrowing or destructive of human nature (d), but rather, it is entelechial and perichoretic (e), not by subjective inherence (f), but by common possession, usage, and denomination (g).
Proof a. There is not a double omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and glory in Christ, but rather, the same glory that the divine nature of the Logos has from eternity, the assumed flesh received in time, as stated in John 17:5, just as the body has the same life that the soul has.
Proof b. The attributes of the Son of God are communicated to the humanity in such a way that they always remain properties of the divine nature and never become properties of the human nature. For they do not depart from the hypostasis of the Word and migrate or pass into the human nature as into a subject; rather, the humanity, having been assumed into the communion of the person by God the Word, has at the same time also been made a participant in the divine nature and its properties. Nor does it receive them in itself as in a subject, so that they become its own properties, but it possesses them in the person of the Word by a real communication.
Proof c. For equalization, the communication of the same thing is not sufficient, but in addition, the same mode of possessing it is required; and this is different with respect to God and the Son of God than it is with respect to the flesh: the former possesses majesty through eternal generation, the latter through the grace of union. Hence, even today, Christ, as man, is less than the Father (1 Cor. 15:28), because the divine attributes that He has received, He possesses by grace (Phil. 2:9).
Proof d. Through the communication of attributes, human nature is not abolished or destroyed; rather, it is adorned and perfected for the function of the mediatorial office. For the fullness of divinity inhabits the body of Christ as its own temple, not to overthrow it but to illuminate it.
Proofs e. & f. The internal and perfect union of two substances, which are indeed essentially distinct yet intimately conjoined, one possessing the nature of ὲντελεχείας (i.e., a perfecting act), the other of δυνάμεως (i.e., a capacity for perfection), necessarily entails the communication of attributes. These attributes inhere subjectively in the more excellent, uncreated substance, while the other participates in them through common possession, usage, and denomination. For example, life and sensitive faculties inhere in the soul and express themselves through the body’s members. Fire is present in iron, yet it burns and shines through the glowing iron. Regarding specifically the divine attributes of the Logos, since they are not qualities or accidents, they do not inhere in any subject as a mode of inherence. Nevertheless, their first and immediate subject of attribution, to which they formally and inherently belong, is the divine nature of the Son of God. The second and mediate subject of attribution, to which they pertain by participation and by the grace of personal union [per unionis personalis gratiam], is the human nature.
Proof g. The ἐνεργητικὰ [energetic] divine attributes dwell in the flesh of Christ as in their proper temple, operate through the flesh as through an instrument hypostatically united, and are predicated of the flesh as its second or mediate subject of attribution.
20.02.202518:33
20.02.202506:32
WE'RE BACKK
13.02.202508:52
“The blessed Isaiah said: 'One of the Seraphim was sent to me holding a coal in its hand which it had taken in a pair of tongs from the altar. And it came to me and touched my lips and said: Behold this has touched your lips and taken away your transgressions, and purged your sins' (ls.6.6-7). We say that the coal supplies a type and image for us of the incarnation of the Word. For if he touches our lips, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮, then he renders us purged of all our sins, and free of our ancient transgressions.” - St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation (ch. 9)
25.02.202518:06
24.02.202518:14
Another translation from David Hollaz' Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum (pt. III, sect. I, ch. 3):
20.02.202518:28
Қайта жіберілді:
LCE - Catechism
17.02.202504:51
The Importance of Memory
At first glance, Luther's first stage may appear to be nothing more than a form of mindless rote learning. But his concern and approach reaches well back into the early church. In presenting the Creed to the catechumens, the church fathers universally exhorted the catechumen to learn it by heart. For example, Cyril urged his students, "This is what I want you to retain verbatim, and which each of you must carefully recite, without writing it on paper, but by engraving it by memory in your hearts" (Cyril, Catechesis V,12).
Augustine emphasized the same theme:
Receive, my sons, the rule of faith, called the Creed. On receiving it, write it in your heart, and every day recite it among yourselves. Before you fall asleep, before you proceed to anything, gird yourselves with your Creed. No one writes down the Creed just to be read; he stamps it on his soul, lest forgetfulness should lose what diligence had given him. Your book is your memory.
Augustine continues: "Say it on your beds; ponder it in the streets, do not forget it during meals; and even when your body sleeps, keep watch over it in your heart."
The emphasis on memory in the church fathers as well as in Luther reflected an intersection of pedagogical realities (oral learning and high illiteracy among the people) and theological concerns (that the word take deep root in the heart).
At first glance, Luther's first stage may appear to be nothing more than a form of mindless rote learning. But his concern and approach reaches well back into the early church. In presenting the Creed to the catechumens, the church fathers universally exhorted the catechumen to learn it by heart. For example, Cyril urged his students, "This is what I want you to retain verbatim, and which each of you must carefully recite, without writing it on paper, but by engraving it by memory in your hearts" (Cyril, Catechesis V,12).
Augustine emphasized the same theme:
Receive, my sons, the rule of faith, called the Creed. On receiving it, write it in your heart, and every day recite it among yourselves. Before you fall asleep, before you proceed to anything, gird yourselves with your Creed. No one writes down the Creed just to be read; he stamps it on his soul, lest forgetfulness should lose what diligence had given him. Your book is your memory.
Augustine continues: "Say it on your beds; ponder it in the streets, do not forget it during meals; and even when your body sleeps, keep watch over it in your heart."
The emphasis on memory in the church fathers as well as in Luther reflected an intersection of pedagogical realities (oral learning and high illiteracy among the people) and theological concerns (that the word take deep root in the heart).
08.02.202517:45
Көрсетілген 1 - 24 арасынан 78
Көбірек мүмкіндіктерді ашу үшін кіріңіз.