|
The Kenosis Question Errors of Christology Kelly P. Gallagher
The church has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Lord that she purports to serve. Although we are not a harsh taskmaster like the Roman Catholic church and damn and anathematize all who do not agree with the council of Chalcedon and the so called Anathasian creed, we do think it is important to “rightly divide the word of truth” and praise God with understanding. The false ideas of the kenosis of Christ come from a difficult passage of scripture, Philippians 2:5-11 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Kenneth Copeland has this to say about Jesus being God, “He [Jesus] referred to God as His Father (which enraged the Pharisees), but He never made the assertion that He was the Most High God. IN fact, He told His disciples that the Father God as greater and mightier than He (John 14:28). Why didn’t Jesus openly proclaim Himself as God during his 33 years on earth? For one single reason. He hadn’t come to earth as God, He’d come as a man.” 1 We can see by the above quote that Copeland teaches a form of kenotic theology that goes so far to deny the deity of Christ. Is this the Jesus of the Gospels, or another Jesus. We believe that God does not save us based upon our perfect understanding of the Godhead or the incarnation of Christ, but to deny the deity of Christ seems to be denying the very gospel and preaching another Jesus and another Gospel. The Greek word kenosis is widely believed to mean, “to empty” as in God emptying Himself of some of His power or attributes to become a man. Classic trinitarian theology divides God into three persons, so only the second person of the Trinity, the Son or the Word, had this “emptying” done to Himself, yet somehow remain God and remain unchanged through the process of incarnation. What is Paul saying here in these few misunderstood verses? Many of the heresies in the church are linked with an improper foundation of understanding who God is. We can and should study the scriptures and the scriptures alone (not man’s councils or even the church fathers) to understand God and the incarnation of Christ. The word kenosis is where it says Christ “made himself of no reputation” or “emptied himself”. The word means to “make void” in other places, but in these places it refers to abstract principles, not to a person. So the question is, what did Christ empty Himself of? The false understanding of the kenosis of Christ has led to the Word-faith teaching that since Christ left His powers and attributes behind and lived as a mere man, we born-again believers are “just as much an incarnation of God as Jesus was” (Kenneth Copeland). It also leads to the Word-Faith teaching of Identification, that Jesus died spiritually and had to be “born again” in hell. Copeland is so bold as to say that God told him that he (Copeland) could have done the same thing as Jesus, if he knew the Word of God as good as Jesus did, because “You’re a reborn man, too.” 2 The essence of kenotic teaching is stated clearly by J.M. Creed, “The Divine Logos by His incarnation divested Himself of His divine attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, so that in His incarnate life the divine Person is revealed and solely revealed through a human consciousness.” 3 The false doctrine of the kenosis of Christ is linked to the false understanding of the Trinity and the eternally begotten Son that originated with Origen. If the Word, of Logos, is the eternally begotten Son of God, and only the Word became flesh (not the Father or the Holy Spirit) then somehow the Logos could cease to be God and yet the rest of the Godhead could stay God and sustain the universe. The idea of the eternally begotten Son came from Origen, of Alexandria, Egypt, who was later excommunicated as a heretic. “By teaching that the Father eternally begets the Son, and that the Son, eternally begotten before all time, is thus effectively co-eternal with the Father, Origen prepared the way for our present understanding: God does not consist of parts, but subsists in Persons. These Persons are distinguished from one another by means of relationships, by begetting and being begotten - but not by succession in time.” 4 The very doctrine of the Trinity is from Origen, who was a gnostic and a heretic. “Origen was to be posthumously condemned as a heretic by the fifth Ecumenical Council (553 A.D.). It is ironic that orthodoxy ultimately condemned him for it is Origen that orthodoxy owes the key of its understanding of the Trinity as three persons but one God, without which orthodoxy would not exist.” 5 Origen spoke of those who are in Christ as also “eternally begotten” as Christ himself was. We can see that the ideas underpining “orthodox” Christianity are heretical. Never does the Bible teach that the Son existed with the Father from all eternity. He is always called “the Word” before the incarnation. Even in heaven now, I John 5:7 says that there are three that bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word (Not the Son) and the Holy Ghost. The Son must be the human body, mind and soul that God assumed. It was the “temple” that God dwelt in. What then does Paul mean when he says that Christ emptied himself, or made himself of no reputation? The word for “reputation” is kenoo (Strong’s 2758) and means, to make empty, to abase, neutralize, falsify: to make of none effect, of no reputation, void., be in vain. Much of the misunderstanding of kenoo is linked with the misunderstanding of morphe (form), “who being in the form of God”. Many misunderstand this as meaning nature, attributes. However, the way this is used in the Greek Septuagint is “visible appearance”. No other place in the New Testament is morphe used, so the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) is the only place where we can see it used in Biblical language. Notice that Christ is IN the form of God, not WAS the form of God. If morphe means nature, then Christ took on a human nature. However, if morphe means visible appearance, then Christ was IN the Word and took on the appearance (not necessarily the nature) of man. Since Christ was in God’s visible form, He came out of God and took on the visible form of a man. He did not empty Himself of His divine powers and attributes, but made Himself of no reputation, He made Himself vain by appearing as a man. In effect, it was as a rich man would disguise himself as a beggar, but did not give up anything. C.I. Scofield says that Christ did not empty Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only the “OUTWARD AND VISIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE GODHEAD.”6 Mr. Scofield is correct. Christ cloaked the visible manifestation of God in the human temple he assumed and this cloaking could be removed at His will. The mount of transfiguration is an example: Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Even his raiment, his clothing, changed and became white as the light. You can’t empty yourself of your appearance, you can only HIDE it. Even if morphe meant nature, you can’t empty yourself of your nature without changing yourself. God cannot empty Himself of his nature, or attributes without ceasing to be God. The New International version says, “Who being in very nature God... but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant.” The New American Standard Version says “form”. The New International version is saying that Christ had two natures, which is the Orthodox position, but not truly implied here in the text. It also implies that Christ emptied himself of His divine nature and became nothing, a servant by nature, which is surely blasphemy. Here are some of the wrong ideas of the kenosis: 1) ”Christ had a human soul, to which the Logos imparted his divinity, little by little until he became completely divine” (Dorner) 2) Christ, “laid aside his deity which was then restored at the acension” (Gess and Beecher) 3) He “abandoned certain prerogatives of the divine mode of existence in order to assume the human, e.g. omniscience” (Gore) 4) ”He surrendered the external, physical attributes of omniscience, though retaining the attributes of love and truth (A.M. Fairbarin) 5) He did not know consciously anything of his divine, trinitarian existence (Martensen). 6) He disguised his deity and attributes, not by giving them up, but by limiting them to a time-form appropriate to the human mode of existence (Ebrard). 7) He gave up the use of the attributes (Carson) 8) He gave up the independent use of the divine attributes (Strong) 9) He limited himself to the voluntary non-use of the attributes (Valvoord) As we can see from the nine examples, many intelligent men have tried to understand the kenosis of Christ and we believe have failed because they misunderstood morphe as nature, or attributes instead of visible form or appearance. You can change your appearance by hiding behind a mask. You cannot change your nature without ceasing to be you. The kenosis doctrine destroys the immutability of God, the integrity of the atonement, promotes polytheistic view of God (that the Second Person of the Trinity can change, but not the First and Third), undermines Christ’s intercession for us and defies the authority of the Church and scripture. Here is a quote by the “orthodox” Cyril of Alexandria against the “heretic” Nestorius: “Nor do we call the Word from God the Father, the God or Lord of Christ. To speak in that way would appear to split into two the one Christ and Saon and Lord and we might in this way fall under the charge of blasphemy, making him the God and Lord of Himself…We offer the unbloody worship in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are SANCTIFIED having partaken of the holy FLESH and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. THIS WE RECEIVE NOT AS ORDINARY FLESH, HEAVEN FORBID, NOR AS THAT OF A MAN WHO HAS BEEN MADE HOLY AND JOINED TO THE WORD BY UNION OR HONOUR, OR WHO HAD A DIVINE INDWELLING, BUT AS TRULY THE LIFE-GIVING AND REAL FLESH OF THE WORD. FOR BEING LIFE BY NATURE AS GOD, WHEN HE BECAME ONE WITH HIS OWN FLESH, HE MADE IT ALSO TO BE LIFE-GIVING.” 7 Here, Cyril of Alexandria is faulting Nestorius for daring to deny that the human flesh of Christ is God and life-giving. I Corinithians 15:47 says that the spirit of Christ is life-giving, not his flesh. Jesus himself said that the flesh profits nothing. II Corinithians 5:16 forbids us to remember the flesh of Christ. We can see that the doctrines accepted by these councils are set up for the doctrine of transubstantian of the Eucharist and a false sanctification of the believer, not by faith, but by eating the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. The idea here is that Christ died along with His flesh. Not only did the second person of the Godhead divest himself of divine powers and attributes, but He actually died. Nestorius was quick to pick up on this error in his second letter to Cyril. “Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord’s economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God…..The Lord said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”. He did not say, “Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up.” Because Cyril of Alexandria pushed his heretical beliefs through and politically destroyed Nestorius, without benefit of his standing trial for his beliefs, Cyril’s twisted, Roman Catholic understanding of the incarnation has led to the Eucharist and Mary being the Mother of God. Most “Protestant” denominations still accept his teachings in the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Here is what some of our orthodox and “Protestant” brothers believe. Certainly we are more Roman Catholic than we would like to believe: The Westminster Confession states it a bit differently. “The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures — the Godhead and the manhood — were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man” (Chap. 8:sec. 2, cited by Cunningham, Historical Theology, 3rd ed., I, 311 as quoted in Chafer. Lutheranism teaches that the attributes of deity could be transferred to the humanity, thus allowing the transference of Christ’s omnipresence to the humanity. Christ is thusly seen as omnipresent in His humanity and thusly present in the “Real Presence” in the Lord’s Table. We can see how the Lutheran’s still held on to many Roman Catholic ideas (and still do!). Luther, however, would not go so far as to say that the bread of the Eucharist ceased to be bread, but included the Lord’s bodily presence. For this reason alone, he would be anathematized by Rome. The idea that the body or flesh of Christ is omnipresent is ridiculous. God is a spirit. His attributes are not transferable to human flesh. The next question is this: What was the form of God that Christ was IN? Jesus is called the “express image of his person.” Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: The Greek word for person is hypostasis (pronounced hoopostasis) which means, “undergirding being”. Jesus is the visible image (icon) of God’s being. So the form or morphe of God that Jesus was in could be referring to his flesh, or it could be referring to a preexistent form that Jesus was which is the form of God. Many believe that this is showing that the Word was the image of God from the beginning, as if the Word was the eternal Son and image of the Father. As we have shown, this doctrine is from the heretic Origen and is not biblical. Isaiah 9:6 tells us “unto us a child is born, unto us a SON is given”. The Son is the human person born from Mary. God also speaks in the Psalms, “Thou art my SON, this day have I begotten thee.” Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. We can see from the last verse that it relates Jesus being the Son to the day he was made a high priest. Acts 13:33 seems to say that Jesus being begotten was at the time of his resurrection. In either case, it is at or after the incarnation that Jesus is begotten of God. Now, if the Word is not the begotten Son, what is the Word? John 1:1 tells us that the Word is God and is with God. Just as we are three part beings; body, soul and spirit - God is a threefold being; Father, Word and Holy Spirit. Unlike us, because He is omnipresent and omnipotent, He can “send” His Spirit and His Word. He created by the Word, but never by the Son. The Word did not “empty” Himself of attributes, but became flesh (not transmuted into flesh) and dwelt among us. Jesus called His flesh the temple and that temple could be destroyed. So the doctrine of the kenosis can lead to the Word-faith heresies of identification (Jesus died spiritually), we are gods and just as much an incarnation as Christ as well as the Roman Catholic heresies of transubstantion of the Eucharist, Mary the Mother of God and the divinization of the human spirit. Jesus did not know the day of his own return. Either what he said was a lie or He was not revealed this knowledge by the Father. The idea that the Word did not know as the second person of the Trinity is ridiculous and divides God into two or three Gods (one lesser). The “Son” does not know the day, because the “Son” is the human body, soul and personal spirit of Christ that grew and became a life giving spirit. He could not become a life giving spirit if His personal spirit was the Logos, for the Logos was already life giving. Therefore, his personal spirit grew strong and became wisdom from God. He knows the day of His return now, because his personal spirit has become omniscient and omnipresent. In that sense, his humanity is omnipresent and omniscient. The idea that his flesh and human mind are so is ridiculous.
The Book of Daniel, Chapter 7 9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. In the Greek Septuagint in verse 13, there is no difference between the Son of man and the Ancient of Days. In Revelation, Jesus appears to John as he is after the resurrection and ascension and his hair is white like wool and He calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending. Here is the conclusion of kenosis from some biblical scholars: In conclusion to our study of the Kenosis, Ryrie agrees with me in his “Survey Of Bible Doctrines” when he states, “What is included in a proper statement of the true doctrine of the kenosis? The concept involves the veiling of Christ’s preincarnate glory (John 17:5), the condescension of taking on Himself the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), and the voluntary nonuse of some of His attributes of deity during the time of His earthly life (Matthew 24:36). His humanity was not a glorified humanity and was thus subject to temptation, weakness, pain and sorrow. Choosing not to use His divine attributes is quite different from saying that He gave them up. Nonuse does not mean subtraction.” 8 The idea that Christ would not use some attributes or let them come out in some kind of match with his age is ridiculous, but is a very popular idea as seen by this quote: A. B. BRUCE (The Humiliation of Christ. Appendix to Lect. II.) The accommodation to the laws of the economy, according to this passage, consisted in this — in stature, real growth; in wisdom, apparent growth. The wonderful wisdom was there from the first, but it was not allowed to appear (ejkfh~nai), to avoid an aspect of monstrosity. These are based on the false notion that “form” is talking about attributes. Jesus let the Father do the works in Him. When the Father did the works, the Word and the Holy Spirit were also involved because the Godhead cannot be divided. Here again is Cyril talking about his ideas of the kenosis: ST. CYRIL (Adversus Nestorium.) Therefore there would have been shown to all an unwonted and strange thing, if, being yet an infant, he had made a demonstration of his wisdom worthy of God; but expanding it gradually and in proportion to the age of the body, and (in this gradual manner) making it manifest to all, he might be said to increase (in wisdom) very appropriately. (Ad Reginas de recta fide, Orat. II., cap. xvi.) “But the boy increased and waxed strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.” And again: “Jesus increased in stature and wisdom, and in favor with God and men.” In affirming our Lord Jesus Christ to be one, and assigning to him both divine and human properties, we truly assert that it was congruous to the measures of the kenosis, on the one hand, that he should receive bodily increase and grow strong, the parts of the body gradually attaining their full development; and, on the other hand, that he should seem to be filled with wisdom, in so far as the manifestation of the wisdom dwelling within him proceeded, as by addition, most congruously to the stature of the body; and this, as I said, agreed with the economy of the Incarnation, and the measures of the state of humiliation. (Apol. contra Theod., ad Anath. iv.) 9 These are our “orthodox” church fathers. They are basically saying that God tricked us into thinking that Christ grew in wisdom to match his age. This is just an illusion, however, since Christ is really the Logos and knows everything. This doctrine is dishonouring to God and makes him a magician at best, a liar at worst. The better understanding of the kenosis is that Jesus form or visible appearance was as a man who is the express image of God’s being. Before the incarnation, he was in God and came forth from God as the only begotten Son. The new versions are trying to tell us that the Greek word monogenes in John 1:18 does not mean only begotten, but “one of a kind” or “unique”. In other words, our understanding of this Greek word has been wrong for 1900 years. Even the council of Nicea, written in Greek, uses monogenes as only begotten. This is a false understanding of the word. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. We are adopted, the angels are created sons of God. He is unique as the only begotten, but to deny monogenes means begotten takes away a crucial truth - Jesus is literally a spiritual son of the Father God and became God by the communication of wisdom and power through inheritance. No other Christology adequately deals with problem verses that show growth, change, limitation and deification of the Son of God without twisting scripture or calling God, or Jesus a liar. Our friend Cyril of Alexandria is a classic example of this type of thinking: And if he is one and the same in virtue of the true unity of natures, and is not one and another (two persons) disjunctively and partitively, to him will belong both to know and to seem not to know. Therefore he knows on the divine side as the Wisdom of the Father. But since he subjected himself to the measure of humanity, he economically appropriates this also with the rest, although, as I said a little ago, being ignorant of nothing, but knowing all things with the Father. IF anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema. 10 Hilary of Potiers, an early church father, also had comments on the “appearance” of ignorance in Christ: Father is greater than the Son; greater not merely as compared to the incarnate Christ, but as compared to the Son, begotten from eternity. This is not simply by the prerogative inherent in all paternity; it is because the Father is self-existent, Himself the Source of all being. With one of his happy phrases Hilary describes it as an inferiority generatione, non genere; the Son is one in kind or nature with the Father, though inferior, as the Begotten, to the Unbegotten. But this inferiority is not to be so construed as to lessen our belief in His divine attributes. For instance, when He addresses the Father in prayer, this is not because He is subordinate, but because He wishes to honor the Fatherhood; and, as Hilary argues at great length, the end, when God shall be all in all, is not to be regarded as a surrender of the Son’s power, in the sense of loss. it is a mysterious final state of permanent, willing submission to the Father’s will, into which he enters b the supreme expression of an obedience which has never failed. Again, our Lord’s language in St. Mark 13:32, must not be taken as signifying ignorance on the part of the Son of His Father’s purpose. For, according to St. Paul (Colossians 2:3), in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and therefore He must know the day and hour of judgment. He is ignorant relatively to us, in the sense that He will not betray His Father’s secret. Whether or no it be possible in calmer times to maintain that the knowledge and the ignorance are complementary truths which finite minds cannot reconcile, we cannot wonder that Hilary, ever on the watch against apparent concessions to Arianism, should in this instance have abandoned his usual method of balancing against each other the apparent contraries. His reasoning is, in any case, a striking proof of his intense conviction of the co-equal Godhead of the Son. Such is Hilary’s argument, very briefly stated. 11 Hillary Hillary tries to reconcile verses of scripture that contradict each other with mental gymnastics. Is Christ trying to “hide” the day from us. Christ, who does not just tell the truth, but is The Truth? The Son is not begotten from all eternity and is the Word of God, the Son is the human body, soul and personal spirit of Christ. The body and soul were created from the flesh of Mary; the personal spirit was fashioned from the being of the I AM as Eve was taken from the side of Adam. Jesus is the new Adam who grew and became wisdom and life-giving. He did not know the day of His own return, yet He was deity. He knows it now. The best portion of scripture to prove the true nature of Christ’s sonship and growth into deity is I Corinthians 15. These verses show that Christ alone became God, we cannot. We will share in HIS DIVINE NATURE NOT GET OUR OWN. The balance between heresy on both sides of the kenosis question is the balance of scripture itself. The Son will always be subordinate to the Father, therefore the Son is not part of the Trinity or the Godhead. The triune God, one person is in the Son. The Son became God. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. We see in verse 45 that Christ became life-giving fully at the resurrection of the dead, for the verses before this speak of resurrection. The process of becoming God took his entire life. He saved us by his life. He became for us, wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that all the glory goes to Christ. The false kenotic doctrines rob Christ of his glory, or blaspheme him by calling him a liar. Man made doctrine, the leaven of the Pharisees is still around and has been for 1900 years. Only the scriptures and nothing else can teach us the doctrines that we need to know. False teachers were around even in Paul’s day and the church has evolved into an apostate whore because of man made doctrine and compromise with the world and its philosophy. Kenneth Copeland, “Believer’s Voice of Victory”,August 1988.p.8 Kenneth Copeland, “Substitution and Identification” audio tape on file with CRI. Ralph P. Martin, The New Bible Dictionary (Wm B. Erdmans Publishing, 1940)p.327 Heresies: The image of Christ in the mirror of orthodoxy and heresy. Harold O. Brown, Doubleday, N.Y. 1984, p.89 Ibid. p.88 C.I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford Univ.Press, 1917), pg 1258. Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D. Master Christian Library C.D. p.405 Dericksons notes on Theology Ibid. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 426. Ibid. p. 427 Ibid. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff. P. 110
|
