Well, good evening. Welcome to another lesson of historical theology. We are in lecture number eight. And in this lecture, we are going to be moving now into what we call the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the early church. So the Nicene Fathers would be specific to those who lived during the time of the Nicene era that were involved with the Council of Nicaea. who wrote, who engaged, who were there. And then the post-Nicene fathers were those that came after that generation that were involved with the Council of Nicaea in 325. So, kind of a brief background on the Council of Nicaea. So, Emperor Constantine, numero uno, summoned bishops to his ecumenical council for the church to resolve the Arian controversy that threatened to divide the unity of Christendom. So, Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, He argued that the Lagos and God the Father were of a different substance, and that's in the pre-incarnate state, not in his flesh. Obviously Christ took on flesh, but he is a creature and an other form of eternal deity. Now there's a common saying that we, those of you that maybe know the discussion, know the heresy, will say that there was a time when the sun was not, right? There was a time when the sun was not. That was kind of really the error, the grave error, right? The grave error of this council. So, I'm sorry, of this debate. The Council of Nicaea had about 250 bishops. Ultimately, they rejected Arianism and voted in favor of a creed put forth by Athanasius of Alexandria, who we're going to be looking at today. So again, we're going to look at Athanasius of Alexandria, and then we're going to be looking at... So you can see, Cyril of Jerusalem, there's a few Cyrils, so Cyril of Jerusalem. But the key phrase, or the key kind of Greek word that was in the debate was that Athanasius used the Greek word homoousios, which means of the same substance, whereas homoousios means like the same substance, and that was the big kind of discussion here. So homoousios is the same of the Logos and the Father, right? That's the connecting piece is that they are of the same substance and that was the nature of the debate. But other things were discussed in the debate as well through the Council of Nicaea, but it's a very important one. So always remember 325 AD, Council of Nicaea. So as mentioned, we're going to be going through Athanasius of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem. So here's our Church Father. affirmations of those and it's kind of fun have used a lot of these for my uh... stock photos and they're not really pictures obviously they're just there's paintings and they all come with the same so so i don't have any actual photographs or any kind of uh... maybe actual pains but this is what we have to go off and i don't know if you have a beard and he's even that she had color i don't think he was think he was probably darker With that said, we're going to be looking at Athanasius. So there's much to be said about him and his contributions to the Christian faith. And most notably about him is that he was utterly relentless, relentless. in defending the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicaea in 325. And obviously he was pretty much like the last man standing. And if it wasn't for him, Arianism would have probably ultimately taken over the land. I mean, it was a very common view from what I understand is that that was actually kind of really becoming this prevailing perspective. But Athanasius, to the Lord's favor and the Lord's grace, was able to hang in there and he kept fighting and ultimately we're thankful that he did. So as I said, nobody did more than him to ensure the triumph of Nicene Orthodoxy during this controversy. So his famous work on the Incarnation, in this one he demonstrates the necessity of the Incarnation for redemption. He tackles challenges from Jew and Gentile and offers a succinct and cogent treatment of the words assumption of human flesh. It's a very small book, but it's a very good book. Our exposition of our study for tonight will be, again, focusing on the doctrine of God. So I will draw the material for our lesson from his work, contra gentis, or against the heathen. Whenever you see contra, it means against. Gentis is heathen. Gentiles would be obviously Gentiles. In his Contra Gentes, Athanasius establishes Christian theism against the pantheistic philosophy that the heathens hold to. Pantheism asserts that all of creation is identical with God. The Christian God is distinct from creation, we know that, that's a pivotal foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. And in Athanasius' defense, he argues in the same classical vein of those who've come before him, beginning with the apophatic statements of God's invisible nature and incomprehensibility, who is unmade. And a few sections later, he demonstrates his sovereign power as creator who gives being to all things, by which he made creatio ex nihilo, out of nothing. And he does what? He sustains all things by his being and gives movement to all. So these apophatic statements of invisible and comprehensible simplicity, aseity, all these things, again, these are the foundational elements of classical theism and ultimately of the Christian tradition. So he is obviously going after a view that annihilates all these key understandings of who God is and makes God one with creation. And ultimately, God is distinct from his creation. That's how the scriptures present him. So we're going to move pretty quickly through this. We're going to jump to chapter 28. In this chapter, Athanasius challenges the pagan notion that God is the cosmic organism, reason being is that it would entail parts in God. So what are we getting back to? We're getting back to divine simplicity. Now, it's interesting I say that he's challenging this notion of a cosmic organism. So if you are up to speed on Doctrine of God and challenges to the Christian understanding of Doctrine of God, you would know that process theism, or process philosophy, in its inception, Mr. Alfred North Whitehead, who's kind of the orchestrator of this, and there was another guy that I think was kind of instrumental in it, Tellyard I think was his name, I can't forget, but basically Alfred North Whitehead is the main founder of this, but he thought of the world being an organism. So what does that mean? It means that we're rehashing things that were defeated many, many years ago. It's important that we go back to these arguments because if they defeated it once, let's not reinvent the wheel. Let's go back to the ad fontes, the ad fontes back to the Christian documents of the early tradition of the faith and let's see what they did. Let's use these arguments if we got to obviously maybe modernize a bit because things aren't going to be exactly the same. It's helpful because obviously if the work's been done and it's stamped it out, well, it just needs to be utilized again. Excuse me. So, in chapter 28, Athanasius, he argues that God stands in need of nothing but is self-sufficient and self-contained in that in him all things have their being. So all things exist. All things have being. Now, if we understand what being is, being is the most abstracted form of existence. We have being. Now, I've said this before, and I'll repeat myself. I'm not saying B-E-A-N, I'm saying B-E-I-N-G. We don't have beans, like cocoa beans. We have being, right? Existence. So that's the basic level, the most abstracted level of existence is what we call being. Athanasius' aim is to refute their error of creation worship, whereby the heathens worship a sun god, a moon god, among others. They combine all gods together as one body, calling the whole as God. Athanasius shows the absurdity of such belief by contrasting the God of the Bible with their God of parts. He says, For if the combination of the parts makes up the whole, and the whole is combined out of the parts, then the whole consists of the parts, and each of them is a portion of the whole. For God is a whole and not a number of parts, and does not consist of diverse elements, but is himself the maker of the system of the universe. For see what impiety they utter against the Deity, when they say this, For if he consists of parts, certainly it will follow that he is unlike himself, and made up of unlike parts. For if he is sun, he is not moon, If he is moon, he is not earth, and if he is earth, he cannot be sea, and so on. Taking the parts one by one, one may discover the absurdity of this theory of theirs." It's very logical, makes sense, right? Divine simplicity protects the essence of who God is, and it's a very important doctrine. Obviously, he's using this as the foundation of his argument. So his reputation is sound, especially where he says, quote, for if he consists of parts, certainly it will follow that he is unlike himself and made up of unlike parts, end quote. So Athanasius here retains the uniqueness and simplicity of God, though he doesn't express it calling it divine simplicity. That's more of a term that we use now, but we'll see it later on. So God is simple. But anyways, so he retains the uniqueness and simplicity of God in that for God to be who he is in his essence, He must be who he is through himself. Not by parts, because he would then be what? Unlike himself. God has to fully be who he is to be who he is. Does that make sense? God has to be fully who he is in order to be who he is. He must be pure in himself as the maker of all that exists. Athanasius began his argument in pointing out God's aseity. At the end of chapter 28, He makes another claim, why God cannot be made up of parts. He says, because that which has parts, as in like all material beings, like you and I do, right? Quote, are destined to be divided again in accordance with the natural tendency of the parts to separation. So, Athanasius understands that to have parts is proper to that which is created, not to that which is uncreated. Why is that? Because material beings, you, the goat, the dog, the fish, the pony, are made of parts. We are created. Material beings are what? We are composite beings. Having parts constitutes who or what they we are. The parts make up what they are, which Athanasius interestingly observes will be divided again at some point. To have parts is to be a material being and all material beings will be divided again. What do you think that is? We what? We break down. Our parts can be taken from us. You know, our fingers can be broken and ripped off and tongues cut off, right? Think about it. If our tongues were cut off, just like Maximus the Confessor, we wouldn't say that Maximus the Confessor no longer exists and he isn't who he is. No, it's... And you can't, and with God, he's simple, you can't remove a part because he doesn't have any parts, right? But again, those parts do constitute what we are as creatures. Now, I don't mean to say that, you know, to say somebody is human, what humanness is, when you abstract that back, I mean, is a person that only has a head and a torso, no arms and legs human? Yeah, he's human. He's missing parts, but he is human. So there's the humanness in there. That ultimately comes from God. Excuse me. So the parts make up what they are, which, oh, I already said that, sorry. So in chapter 41, so we're kind of skipping pretty quick, he expounds further the notion of composition, but directing his attention to the word, who having no composition is fully present to creation as its creator, but also is its sustainer. Excuse me. So Athanasius, using a play on words approach, he says, as Christ is the word, quote, he is not after the likeness of human words composed of syllables, end quote. See what he's doing here? The word, who's the word? Right, the word. He is not after the likeness of human words, which are what? Composed of syllables. syllables. The word is what? One syllable. Humans are, quote, composed of parts and made out of nothing, being composite and divisible. It is interesting to notice the ejectival phrases in his statement, which seem to be opposed to each other. composed of parts, yet made out of nothing. But this is easy to clear up. We must remember that to say God creates out of nothing It means that God creates out of nothing apart from himself, Romans 11 36. Athanasius makes another contrast, a simple slash composite contrast. He says, quote, excuse me, God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore his word also has true existence and is not composite, end quote. See for Athanasius, Non-compositeness is true existence. And only God and his word have true existence, because God has life in himself. We would say that God is a saint. He is being. Creatures are given being or have their being imparted to them. True existence only God can have because he is his existence. And that is what later formulations of simplicity arrive at. You can see this in Aquinas in his Summa Theologica 133, where he says, God is not only his own essence, but also his own existence. Therefore, his existence is necessary. If God is not only his own essence, but also his own existence, then he is necessary. Existence doesn't happen apart from God, so his existence is necessary. And he cannot give himself existence or himself being, and he cannot be given essence and existence from some prior supreme being. Why is that? Because he is simple. Therefore, the logic of simplicity entails that God is his own essence and is his own existence. His essence and existence are the same. That is what true existence is, and I see that I repeated myself. I jumped down to a footnote that I wasn't supposed to, but again, God is his essence and his existence, and they are the same. So that which has being, essence, and has existence, as like creatures and composite beings, ultimately, that's something we have imparted to us. And so therefore, we wouldn't have true existence. So following his assertion of non-compositeness, simplicity, so the non-compositeness of the word as, quote, the one and only begotten God who proceeds in his goodness from the Father as from a good fountain, Athanasius expresses the truly wonderful act by the word in uniting himself to his creation. He says here, God's eternal word, I'm sorry, God's eternal word, Athanasius writes, has given substantial existence to creation, having its being out of nothing. The creation is by nature weak and mortal, subject to dissolution, but in desiring all to exist as objects of his loving kindness, so that it does not fall out of existence, the word guides and settles the whole of creation. I'm sorry, I gotta put on a little, old chapstick here i looked weird huh? yeah, it's kind of, it's my backup little ball, alright okay, excuse me So the contrast he is making between that which is being and that which has been is intended to demonstrate the words astounding love for a creation, which is at risk of dropping out of existence. Now, I don't mean a creation like just some random creation, but ultimately he says here that what creation is at risk of dropping out of existence. So what does that mean? Well, God sustains all things by the word of his power. So that's what he's ultimately getting at. He's being thoroughly biblical in what he's saying. So the word sustains creation, excuse me, by way of participation. Athanasius writes, quote, for it partakes of the word who derives true existence from the father, end quote. Now while it seems that Athanasius is insinuating that the word is given his being, we must take note of the distinction he maintains and that the word derives true existence, whereas creation has existence by participation. A creature cannot derive true existence. True existence is necessary, and we know that the Son is from the Father, the Logos of the Word, and if he has the same true existence, then he is true existence, which means he has his existence, and he is his existence. So if you recall a few paragraphs ago, we defined that Athanasius means by true existence, which is to have existence in itself and from itself as only God has, which the word, though said to be from the Father, is himself also God. And Athanasius grounds this understanding about the word in Colossians 1, 15 through 16, where the word is the manifestation of the invisible God, the express image of the divine nature. In chapter 42, Athanasius expounds further the function of the word in providence and conservation of its creation, which extends from the general to the particular. Now he's referring here to all that is in the oceans and their movement and the dry ground and all the plant life that clothes it. So that's kind of a way of moving from general to particular. So in that he says, quote, there is nothing that is and takes place, but has been made and stands by him and through him, end quote. So to explain what he means, Athanasius gives an analogy of a musician fine-tuning his lyre so that a perfect sound manifests when played with all the notes in unison. You can obviously think of a harp. You can think of a piano. But just think of a musical instrument. And he writes. So also the wisdom of God, handling the universe as a lyre, or you can say a piano or a guitar, right, harmonica, whatever, and adjusting things in the air to the things on the earth and things in the heaven, excuse me, to the things in the air and combining parts into wholes and moving them all by his beckoned will, produces well and fittingly as the result the unity of the universe and of its order, himself remaining unmoved with the Father while he moves all things by his organizing action as seems good for each to his own Father." So the Word is unmoved as what is proper to deity. Athanasius remarks about what is to him surprising about the Word the Godhead. That is how the Word's act of providence and conservation is done by one and the same act of will moving all things simultaneously. Well, we'll get through this, I don't want to repeat myself. So in a single nod, that's the end quote, single nod, the godhead moves everything according to each thing's purpose that he has given it. And this movement by the one who is unmoved produces, quote, a marvelous and truly divine harmony, end quote. So what does he mean by this one act of will that all things move? And he gives some illustrations, but this one here I think is really good, and it's quite fitting. So he explains the nature of the soul. This is what he says. He says, the soul. in that at one time moves our several senses according to the proper function of each, so that while some one object is present, all alike are put in motion, and the eye see, the ear hears, the hand touches, the smell takes an odor, and the palate tastes, and often the other parts of the body act too, as for instance if the feet walk." So our soul moves every aspect of our body all at once, where our bodies, all the parts, minuscule and large, harmoniously function as one. So as I'm talking to you right now, in this very moment as I'm talking to you, I'm hearing, I'm seeing, I'm smelling, I'm moving my hands, my internal functions are going on, I'm thinking, I'm articulating. So all this stuff is happening at one time. I don't see something and then think something and then move something. It's all simultaneously. So this one movement, my soul moves every part of my body to do, to act according to the proper function that that part has been made to do. So back to Athanasius, he says, in like manner, we must conceive of the whole of creation even though the example be inadequate, yet with an enlarged idea. For with the single impulse of a nod, a nod, as it were, as if God could nod, right? But for the single impulse of a nod, as it were, of the word of God, all things simultaneously fall into order. And each discharge their proper functions, and a single order is made up by them all together," end quote. But as he notes, all illustrations worldly ones, earthly ones, right? Temporal ones, they all fall short in that we cannot see all the inner workings, the interlocking nexus of the cosmos, the invisible things and beings wherein some ineffable mystery, he moves all things, sustains all things through his providential care and governance. One thing I find fascinating is to think about a created object. Let's just go with a cell. We can see a cell with a micrometer. We can see the inner workings, the inner parts of it. But what's fascinating is that we can only see so far. There's more behind that. There's more behind even the deepest fathoms of the cellular world that we can see. There's more behind that, underneath it, that we can't see sustaining that. And I think that ultimately, we can keep going and going and going and going. We can keep dividing, right? It's made of parts. We can keep dividing. But we keep going and going and going. And ultimately, we will come to a point that gets us to the mouth of God. He spoke and it came to be. He sustains all things by the word of his power. Pretty fascinating. So, Athanasius concludes, stating that the word demonstrates his kingship in orchestrating the movement of creation for the glory and knowledge of his own father, so that almost by the very works that he brings to pass, he teaches us and says, by thy greatness and beauty of the creature, proportionably the maker of them is seen. End quote. So to buttress his theology of creation and providence, Athanasius looks to Genesis 1, where we see the divine fiat, the command of creation, let there be. And he says that scripture declares that the word of the Lord created the heavens and the earth by the breath of his mouth, Psalm 33 6. He spoke and things were made. But Athanasius asks this question, he says, to whom is God speaking? Again, Athanasius holds that God created out of nothing, which is not to mean God created material from non-material, right? He didn't pull something out of a hat that didn't exist, right? But rather all things were made in him and through him. Again, it's what we call an ineffable act. Ineffable. There's no words to explain or to make an analogy to what this means. But that's what we know, right? All things were made in him and through him. So then, back to his question. If God is speaking, who is he speaking to since nothing exists? Now, some would say he's speaking to the angels, but obviously the angels are created beings. This is before that. Creation is something he's spoken to beings. So who is he speaking to, he says? Well, with whom With whom, that doesn't sound right, yeah, with whom else can God speak? A little, kind of the King James-ish approach, right? With whom can else God speak? I don't think that's right anyways. But who else can understand God's language but himself? Was not wisdom with God before the foundations were laid? As we read in Proverbs 8, 27, he says, I was there when he established the heavens, when he laid out the horizon on the surface of the ocean. End quote. So how can God have wisdom if he were a monadic deity, not a Trinitarian deity, a triad? He's a monad, a monadic deity. And if God only had wisdom when he brought creation into existence, then God's wisdom is contingent on creation. It might be said that creation was then necessary to exist in order for God to demonstrate his wisdom. But being present with God, Athanasius writes, As his wisdom and his word, looking at the Father, he fashioned the universe, and organized it, and gave it order. And as he is the power of the Father, he gave all things strength to be, as the Savior says, What things soever I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner. And his holy disciples teach that all things were made through him and unto him. Colossians 1.16. So we see that Athanasius is following the tradition of those before him, whereby the reference to Christ as the wisdom of God and the power of God, if you've been listening long enough, that's from 1 Corinthians what? Gotta figure that one out. 1 Corinthians 1, I'll leave it there for you. But Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God, and that functions as axiomatic for attributing the full deity between the Father and the Son. I have a footnote down here. Is it worth sharing? Nah, it's alright. Okay. And this sharing of the divine essence isn't by participation as the Word is united to its creation, but rather, Athanasius writes, By being in his very wisdom, very word, and very own power of the Father, very light, very truth, very righteousness, very virtue, and in truth his express image and brightness and resemblance. And to sum all up, he is the holy perfect fruit of the Father and is alone the Son and unchanging image of the Father." End quote. And the sharing of the divine essence. In concluding his treatise, as Athanasius has rigorously advanced a robust doctrine of God from scripture, he directs the Gentiles to the one who can restore their corrupt nature, the Lord Jesus Christ. They should be left to conclude that the Word, the Wisdom, the Power of the Creator is also their Savior. that it is through him that the Father orders worship and prays as the Christ who holds all things together. It is in him where one finds the prize of life everlasting. And it is also in him where many will find judgment and damnation and death everlasting." Now, more could be examined with Athanasius and his writings, his theology. But again, he is a pillar of orthodoxy. And when it comes to our doctrine of God, doctrine of the Trinity, So to kind of get started with him, I recommend you to read his On the Incarnation. It's a very small work. This one here, it's a newer translation. You could probably get it used for like $12 or $13 on Amazon. The preface by C.S. Lewis, I think it's like a 40-page preface. I think it's pretty long. Or maybe it's not. I'm thinking of a different one. Sorry. Anyways, but his preface is very good. And this is where you may have heard that reference to C.S. Lewis about for every new book you read, you want to read an old one. And so he really talks about the importance of reading classical works in this one, which you might have heard before. really i want to get us to what we went through wasn't that one uh... but in these works that i've been talking about i haven't you know always listed all of them but you go to uh... christian if your library cc only i think christian classic if your library online you get all the stuff all the works of the church fathers free pdf uh... even that you can buy you know kind of it's all um... it's all uh... we call open demeanor Domain something where basically you can get it on Amazon free for Kindle. So I just prefer the newer translations I think they're more readable again. I most of I've read in the back as I have that series back there the Nicene, anti-Nicene, Fathers series, I've read almost all of it. So it's just a little bit more dense. This is just kind of taking sections from that and making them small little books for people to digest and not be overwhelmed. So anyways, Athanasius, again, very important church father, very critical, pivotal figure ultimately to the deity of Christ. So, all right, next one, Cyril Jerusalem. Around 310 to 386, he was another defender of Nicene Orthodoxy in the Arian Controversy. Ultimately, the Council of Nicaea settled the issue of Arianism 325, but it did not resolve the controversy altogether. Obviously, even though something was done with a final decision, it doesn't mean those that disagreed just started agreeing. There's still stuff kind of brewing. So many bishops as well as emperors continued to support the Arian viewpoint. Now Cyril became bishop of Jerusalem in 349. He was a staunch defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, but he was himself banished from his sea by those favoring Arianism. But he was recalled then 10 years later. His influential 23 catechetical lectures, delivered in 347-48, dealt with the several issues of doctrine and Christian practice that was going on at this time. He was ultimately later dubbed Doctor of the Church. Now, as a note, some, Jerome and Rufinus, labeled Cyril as an Arian because of his avoidance of the phrase, quote, of the essence, usias, of the father, and, quote, of one essence, homoousion, with the father. But. When you read his lectures, the overabundance of scriptural support for his understanding of the Trinity and of God, sorry, of the Trinity and doctrine of God, it's refreshing and it's quite representative of Nicene Orthodoxy. So when we get into Cyril, what we see is he kind of passage by passage, he shows the divine essence of the son with the father, whereby he is the creator, sustainer, the wisdom, the power, the fullness of God, and using those classical ascriptions, excuse me, but also the son of David according to the flesh born of woman. Now we're going to read through, well, we're not going to read, but we're going to go through his lecture number 11. Again, he gave 23. So again, we're only going to touch, I think, lecture 11. I think we did another one, but maybe not. So again, we're just getting a little bit of what he says here, and I encourage you to read more. But this title, lecture number 11, it's where he explains the Son of God as begotten of the Father from before ages, all ages, and by whom all things were made. So first he addresses the manner of how Christ is the Son. The Son is the Son by nature, without beginning. He was not made a Son through adoption, being brought from bondage into a higher state, as some erroneously thought, or they advocated that. But he is quote eternally begotten by an unscrutable inscrutable and incomprehensible generation again We are temporal creatures in time trying to speak of a a process, a motion, a beginning, a generating that we only know in time and speak of it from an eternal sense. And all we're trying to do is just show that the Son is eternally from the Father of the same substance, of the same essence. And so we're just getting the language gives us the relationships, not a distinct being or a time when the Son was not or when the Spirit was not. So he doesn't speculate on the generation of the Son, avoiding the use of the typical metaphysical language we often see. We've already gone through some of that. He stays pretty rigid to the lines of Scripture to support his doctrine of the deity of Christ, the eternal Son of God. So beginning with Matthew 1. In which we see the genealogy of Christ according to the flesh, Cyril notes that Christ, quote, is the son of David at the end of the ages, but the son of God before all ages without beginning. See that contrast? Cyril's referring to the divine economy. We talked about this, which is the manifestation of God's word and spirit from eternity past into creation according to his plan of redemption. Now this method of teaching the divine economy using that way teaching about Christ is important to correct an erroneous view of Jesus as a mere human who God the Father adopted as his son making him Lord and King. And what's that heresy called? It's called adoptionism. So to show this distinction, Searle navigates through various Christological passages, making the proper designations that speak of Christ according to his human nature, human person, and according to the divine person. So the errors that one makes when it comes to Christology is that when they lean too heavily on a specific set of passages, which leads to an unbalanced view of Christ. So in this case, Searle's correcting those that place greater emphasis on the passages of Scripture that pertain to the humanity of Christ. Now he works carefully through Christological texts explaining how Christ is both son of David and son of God, his humanity, his divinity. But it's important that we do not bifurcate the natures of Christ seeing them separately. So we're talking a little bit about the hypostasis. So we must see the son as the person, hypostatization of Jesus Christ. Let's say that again. Hypostatization of Jesus Christ. So what is this? We're saying that It is the concrete person of Jesus Christ in the incarnation who is fully man, fully divine. So when the scriptures show him doing human acts, it is the person of Jesus acting proper to his humanity. And when we see him doing divine acts, it is the person of Christ acting proper to his divinity. And that's how we need to understand it. We want to balance it out, because obviously, does God need to eat? Well, we would say, no. But does Jesus need to eat? we would say yes. So then it's actually theologically correct to say God needs to eat. Again, this only is specific to the person of Jesus. It's called the communication of properties or the communicatio idiomata. So our language has to be careful, has to be precise. And this is where like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unitarians and all those guys really kind of blunder here is they don't retain this distinction attributing everything to the person of Jesus, whether it's a human act or a divine act. So, balance and a proper understanding of the Incarnation is of the utmost importance to formulate a coherent Christology in Trinitarian theology. One more sip, if I have anything left. Thank you, Lord. So Silo writes, Christ as the son of David is, quote, subject to time, into handling, into genealogical descent. But as son, according to the Godhead, he is subject neither to time, nor to place, nor to genealogical descent." And he references Isaiah 53a, and it's probably, this is the most cited passage by church fathers as a direct reference to the generation of the son from the father. The version I use, the CSB, it says, quote, He was taken away because of oppression and judgment, and who considered his fate? For he was cut off from the land of the living, and was struck because of my people's rebellion." End quote. I see nothing in there of generation, but ultimately this is driven from the King James Version, which it says, quote, he was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for this transgression of my people was stricken." So, it's quite interesting that the early church fathers used this passage to speak of a generation of the son from the father. You will find this in Augustine, Athanasius, Christostom, Hippolytus, Alexander of Alexandria, and the lead of the greats to name a few. Citing Isaiah 53 together with John 4, 24, which is God is spirit, Cyril says that he who is a spirit has spiritually begotten as being incorporeal an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation. That doesn't clear anything up, but ultimately he's trying to make sense in a way to hold true to what the Bible says, but at the same time knowing that we can't comprehend this generation, that kind of generation, right? So a classic passage that causes confusion, whereby many make the error that God the Father adopted Jesus in the New Testament use of Psalm 2-7 in Jesus' baptism. It reads, excuse me. The Lord said unto me, you are my son, today I have begotten you. There's that begotten language, right? So they're conflating that and making it more of a temporal thing. Now obviously the begotten piece is he's using that to distinctly choose him as the Lord Jesus. God is in a sense calling him, right? I made you my son today. Ultimately, it's gonna be fulfillment language of the son of David. So Cyril explains that the words, quote, you are my son, refer to the eternal generation of the son, whereas when it says today, in that passage from 2-7, refers to Christ's birth and time as the Messiah. So he's making a distinction there. Jesus is the son of God by nature, not by adoption, which is what begotten of the father means. We beget humans, therefore by nature, what we beget is human. In God as divine essence by nature, begetting a son, the son's nature is the divine essence. Searle continues making scriptural arguments showing that the son is the eternally begotten son of God the Father. Now Searle doesn't want to elaborate further than what scripture teaches us, and I'm thankful he's that way, but he understands that the subject is quite heavy to discern. This is what he says. This is a very good kind of careful summary statement. He says, but not even the Holy Ghost himself was spoken in the Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the Father. Why, then, do you busy yourself about things which not even the Holy Ghost has written in the Scriptures? Why do you, who know not the things which are written, busy yourself about the things which are not written? There are many questions in the divine Scriptures. What is written we comprehend not. Why do we busy ourselves about what is not written? It is sufficient for us to know that God has begotten one only Son." And we'll end with his set of scripture proofs that he gives to support his point. And these proofs should be enough to demonstrate that Christ is the only begotten of the Father. These are his three scripture proofs, which I find are awesome. So I call them the three-punch combo of proof text for the deity of Christ. He writes, quote, for as the Father has life in himself, so also he has given to the Son life in himself, John 5.26. And that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, John 5.23. And then just as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, so the Son also gives life to whom He wants. John 5.21. The Son is very God and that the Father is in Him. John 14.11. In these three passages, John demonstrates the son's divine nature as being that of the father by attributing the same divine activity, the energia, energia. We'll see that more in the Cappadocians. The same divine activity to him that the father has, along with the command to honor him just as we honor the father, right? So you see this logic in his thought. Again, free punch combo, one, two, three, Jehovah's Witness comes to your front door, bam, done. Well, just kidding. So I think, really, my conclusion about Cyril, it's a devastating attack. Again, Jehovah has come to your door. Take one of these passages, walk through the logical implications of what John is saying. Cyril is brilliant. Again, we don't want to attack anybody, but we want to be wise and vigilant in our discussions with those that deny the deity of Christ. Sorry, that deny the deity of Christ. I think I said deny the deity of Christ. But we have to, right? Because God in the flesh took on flesh for us. Redemption, salvation, glory, honor, power, wisdom. All these things are grounded, love grounded in the knowledge of Christ. If you don't know Christ, we don't know God. Know your Bibles, people. Know Christian history. Know the arguments these guys engage with and learn the weaknesses of their opponents. The Lord's word brings down every enemy that comes before him. So be confident in what scripture and the Christian tradition have held to in advancing the kingdom of God against all those who oppose him. Heresy opposes the pure doctrine of God. So that's it. That's Athanasius and Cyril. Again, more could be spoken about these guys. I would recommend just looking online for them. Look for the one book that I offered. Cyril, again, you can find free as well. So again, I hope it's very helpful. God bless, and I'll see you next time.