The council wished to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians and to use instead the acknowledged words of the Scriptures, that the Son is not from nothing but “from God,” and is “Word” and “Wisdom,” and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father. But Eusebius and his fellows, led by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase “from God” as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the Word of God did not differ from us in any way because it is written, “There is one God, from whom are all things” [1 Cor. 8:6] and again, “Old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God” [2 Cor. 5:17]. But the Fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words “from God.” Accordingly, they wrote “from the essence of God,” in order that “from God” might not be considered common and equal in the Son and in things originate, but that all others might be acknowledged as creatures, and the Word alone as from the Father. For though all things be said to be from God, yet this is not the sense in which the Son is from him. As to the creatures, “of God” is said of them on this account, in that they exist not at random or spontaneously, nor come to be by chance, according to those philosophers who refer them to the combination of atoms, and to elements of similar structure—nor as certain heretics speak of a distinct Framer—nor as others again say that the constitution of all things is from certain angels—but in that (whereas God is) it was by him that all things were brought into being through his Word, not existing before.
But as to the Word, since he is not a creature, he alone is both called and is “from the Father.” It is significant in this sense to say that the Son is “from the essence of the Father,” for to nothing originate does this attach. In truth, when Paul says that “all things are from God,” he immediately adds, “and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things,” in order to show all men that the Son is other than all these things which came to be from God (for the things which came to be from God, came to be through his Son); and that he had used his foregoing words with reference to the world as framed by God, and not as if all things were from the Father as the Son is. For other things are not like the Son, nor is the Word one among others. He is Lord and Framer of all. On account of this did the holy council declare expressly that he was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God; and that no subterfuge should be left open to the irreligious. This then was the reason why the council wrote “of the essence.” 20. Eusebius and his companions were put to shame by the arguments against them and did not dare to contradict when the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true power and image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in him without division (for never was the Word not, but he was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light). Nevertheless, they were caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that “like,” and “always,” and “power,” and “in him,” were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these. As to “like,” they said that it is written of us, “Man is the image and glory of God” [1 Cor. 11:7]; “always,” that it was written, “For we who live are always” [2 Cor. 4:11]; “in him,” “In him we live and move and have our being” [Acts 17:28]; “unalterable,” that it is written, “Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ” [Rom. 8:35]; as to “power,” that the caterpillar and the locust are called “power” and “great power,” and that it is often said of the people, for instance, “All the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt” [Exod. 12:41]; and there are others also, heavenly ones, for Scripture says, “The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge” [Ps. 46:7].
I apologize @Johann.
I did not intend to offend you.
I do not think I ever said I was “copiously Spirit-filled”. Please show me where I said this, or something like this, and I will immediately confess and repent.
Again, I’m sorry.
@Johann, yes, I guess so. Since I have no recollection of it, and I don’t feel like I would have “claimed” it for myself, i.e. I wouldn’t say that about myself; so If I am to repent of it and confess my error, I really need to know how and when I said such a thing, so I might understand my error, and turn from it.
Thanks for understanding.
I appreciate your response to my post. I want to assure you I was not offended by other posters, and I sincerely hope I was not offensive to them. My position is not one that tries to placate, nor seeks compromise, but one I have arrived at personally, through careful study, and copious assistance from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. I hold my position because it best fits with the whole counsel of God (IMHO), rings true to revelation, and satisfies the major objections held by both poles. I share it not to enter into the fray of contention (Galatians 5:19-21), but simply because my POV was requested. I have enough experience to predict my position will most-likely not be welcomed by those on either pole. (I am not suggesting you are one of those).
“Copious assistance” from the indwelling Holy Spirit of God… Since I am not familiar with your particular lingo or manner of writing, I read that statement as meaning much the same as “copious filling of the Holy Spirit.” with the result of you being "copiously assisted…"If that is not what you meant, then perhaps you can clarify it for me rather than correcting my reading of your words.
It is now 02:46 in the morning here, so I hope you are feeling better. I’ll await your response.
Thank you for providing the context of the phrase we are talking about. I appreciate the extra effort you put into finding it.
The statement you are referencing is from a conversation I was having with another brother.
By reviewing this statement in context I think we can easily identify where the misunderstanding occurred.
When I said I relied on “copious assistance” from the Holy Spirit, I was thinking of the Holy Spirit’s role as “paraclete”; i.e the promised “helper”, specifically as given to us in the bible…
John 14:16 – “another Helper (parakletos)…”
John 14:26 – “But the Helper (parakletos), the Holy Spirit…”
John 15:26 – “When the Helper (parakletos) comes…”
John 16:7 – “…unless I go away, the Helper (parakletos) will not come…”
1 John 2:1 – “…we have an Advocate (parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ…”
I do believe I receive an abundance of assistance from The Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised.
I believe all born-from-above believers do too.
I was not suggesting I am somehow special, or that I have “more filling” than anyone else.
KP, this is not the first occasion on which our respective interpretations of one another’s words, coupled with differences in expression, tone, and manner of writing, have resulted in unnecessary friction between us. While I do appreciate your having clarified what appeared to me to be a contradiction, I have nevertheless concluded that, for the sake of clarity, mutual peace, and the avoidance of further misunderstanding, it is in my best interest to refrain from any further communication between us.
@Johann
I concur, we have a history of similar situations as this. I sincerely doubt openly reviewing each them would make much headway in mutual understanding, augment our testimony, and/or honor our Savior. You may want to review each of them privately.
In deference to you, I will comply with your request.