A relationship with god by ken schott

Results | Book Depository

a relationship with god by ken schott

Schott, A. F. Numberfun. Schott Nurse-patient relationships in a hospital maternity service. Obeying God's laws: the Ten commandments. Macrorie, Ken. Ken Schott is the author of A Relationship With God ( avg rating, 1 rating, 0 reviews, published ). A Relationship With God by Dr. Ken Schott Paperback Publisher: 21st Century Christian. Price: $ Quantity Discounts Available.

It reads as well as your favorite fiction book but leaves behind life-changing lessons of what it means to be personally loved and adored by God. Jud Wilhite masterfully combines biblical truths with real life examples to reveal the never-ending, loving pursuit of God. This heartbeat of God echoes through eternity. Jud Wilhite combines both beautiful language and compelling stories to remind us of this timeless truth.

index-art.info | Pursued | | Jud Wilhite | Boeken

Pick up this book. You won't be the same.

a relationship with god by ken schott

This remarkable book will challenge how you see God and faith and help you experience God at deeper levels of your life. Jud brilliantly helps all of us understand the simple truth that there is a God who is pursuing us with a scandalous love. Whether you're starting a journey with God or you've been a Christ follower for decades this book can change the way you view God and what he's doing in your life.

I'll pick this book up again and again. It will show you God's heart in a way that will change yours. My good friend Jud Wilhite has done it again! This book will open your eyes and renew your faith. The subject of chapter 26 is not the Holy Spirit, but demonology. The Holy Spirit is not at all present in this section. Eusebius starts with the statement that there are not only good powers but also bad ones, too. Exactly on this point, Plato follows the words of the Hebrews.

Young Love: Audition Show / Engagement Ceremony / Visit by Janet's Mom and Jimmy's Dad

Then he quotes a section of Nomoi de where two World-Souls are mentioned, a good one and a bad one. There is no identification of the World-Soul with the Holy Spirit in this text, but the quotation is given in order to show that Plato knew about bad spirits.

The Times & The Sunday Times

That is why Eusebius quotes Job 1: Even Scripture speaks about the devil and the angels. In his description of the angels, the Holy Spirit is not present. Thus, I doubt that we can take this passage as a pneumatological one. It is just a passage about angels and demons.

From my point of view, PE 11 is of little or nearly no help for the pneumatology of Eusebius. This passage, however, is not the unique pneumatological one in the whole work. More important is perhaps PE 7. This passage belongs to a context that is similar to the structure of book 11, because it wants to demonstrate that the Hebrews had a theology that is quite close to that of the Christians.

The creating activity is explained by a description of the first 7.

a relationship with god by ken schott

This structure corroborates the analysis of book 11 given above. In both cases, Eusebius goes through the hierarchy of being, beginning with the highest nature, God-Father, and then proceeding step by step to matter. It becomes clear that pneumatology has no distinct and independent place in this structure, but is integrated into the passage about the heavenly powers. That is why at the beginning of PE 7.

After that, Eusebius pursues his overall strategy and explains after the sun and the moon the stars that is, the angels. In this concept, the Holy Spirit is integrated into the description of the heavenly world.

14. How Binitarian/Trinitarian was Eusebius?

His main function is the distributing function. Thus, he is considered to be divine by the Hebrews, but Eusebius himself is very prudent in his own expressions.

Eusebius does not express his own opinion in this respect. There the Holy Spirit is certainly more than an angel: It will become clear from the analysis of Eccl. Strutwolf is right in asserting that Eccl. From my point of view, it was particularly the struggle with Marcellus that caused Eusebius to incorporate pneumatology into his Trinitarian thought—very early in the fourth century and with important effects on the history of theology in the later fourth century.

He could do so because he had developed some pneumatological ideas in PE 7. He picked up this passage and extended it in the Trinitarian controversy. Thus, Marcellus seems to be the reason for a really Trinitarian passage in Eusebius that became important for the history of theological thinking during the fourth century.

Before we analyze the text of Eusebius, we should consider the argument of Marcellus consisting of four fragments that Eusebius wants to refute. The Logos went out from the Father and came to us Jn The Holy Spirit went out from the Father Jn This proves the mystery, i. Thus, God as a Monad extended to a Triad is indivisible. Asterius mentions the three hypostases several times, but this is apparently wrong i.

Thus, Marcellus is a truly Trinitarian theologian due to his understanding of God.

  • A Relationship with God (Paperback)
  • The Times & The Sunday Times Homepage

Marcellus develops his argument by using biblical quotations; it is an exegetical argument. He proceeds in five steps: The Son was eternally with the Father, then he was sent into the world; for this purpose he went out from the Father.

Also others went out from God, e.

21st Century Christian Inc

Thus, going out can be said about the Son and the Holy Spirit in a similar manner, but this does not mean identity. In all the announcements, the Son speaks of the Holy Spirit as of a different person.

This last sentence is not proven by the arguments given before, but leads to the following section: The Holy Spirit receives everything that he reveals from the Father and the Son. Both, the Father and the Son, are a spirit and b holy, but this is no proof of their identity with the Holy Spirit, e. The Holy Spirit has, however, a specific character, because he is the Paraclete.

So we should preserve Mt Eusebius explains this by using 1 Cor The Father is the origin and the donor of grace, the Son procures this by leading the Holy Spirit who distributes the charisms. This interpretation of 1 Cor This puts both aspects dependence and superiority into one sentence.

The Holy Spirit is not only led by the Son, but also caused by him according to Jn 1: So there is a clear order: The Holy Spirit, however, is neither God nor Son, but has his origin from the Father in a manner comparable to the Son, while being at the same time one of those things that is brought into subsistence by the Son Jn 1: It means either God the Father or it means God in general as a category.

a relationship with god by ken schott

Thus, either the Holy Spirit is not identical with the Father or he is not God or divine at all. From my perspective it is far from being certain that Eusebius here denies the divinity of the Spirit. He is just stressing the dependence and the specific operation of the Holy Spirit in order to refute Marcellus who is accused of the heresy of Paul of Samosata and others in the following sentence the conclusion mentioned above.

The result of this analysis is that Eusebius is forced by Marcellus to explain why and in what respect the Holy Spirit is different from the Son.

a relationship with god by ken schott

This leads Eusebius to a seven-page pneumatological passage. In his pneumatology, he clearly follows Origen. Thus, exactly the same problem that Origen was dealing with reappears in Eusebius: But just like Origen, Eusebius refers to the fact that exactly the soteriological function of the Holy Spirit is closely linked to his being brought into subsistence by the Son.

Both Marcellus and Eusebius agree that the soteriological functions as told by Scripture allow statements about the ontological relationships between Son and Spirit. While to Marcellus these soteriological functions show the hidden and mysterious identity of Son and Holy Spirit so we cannot speak of two different persons—against Asteriusto Eusebius the soteriological functions of the Holy Spirit and the Son show the ontological difference between them so we should speak of different hypostases.

But exactly this difference causes a problem: The polemical target of this pneumatology became important in the struggle of the Origenist theology against Marcellus and Photinus in the forties and fifties—visible in the various Creeds of this time.

Thus, the degree of divinity of the Holy Spirit became unclear. It was, however, caused by the controversy with Marcellus that revealed an internal problem of the Origenistic tradition. The attempt to bring together dependence and superiority of operation was based upon the close link between soteriological functions and ontological relations as Origen preferred them.

It was exactly this close link that seemed to be problematic in the struggle against Marcellus. Thus, stressing the difference between Son and Holy Spirit led to an overestimation of the dependence of the Holy Spirit on the Son.

This raised the question whether the Holy Spirit was God at all. The Pneumatomachians drew their conclusions from this, clearly stating that the Holy Spirit was a creature though different from all other creatures. The majority of the bishops, however, avoided being clear about this point.

The result of this we can see in Basil of Caesarea who struggled for more than fifteen years with this tradition.

Exactly this strategy was widely accepted in To my mind, pneumatology as a part of Trinitarian thought in general was not extremely important to Eusebius; we have only a couple of pages about it in his work. So we may say: In the controversy with Marcellus, however, he felt obliged to say something about pneumatology. In so doing, he developed a considerably important pneumatology that was dependent on Origen. Regarding the impact of this pneumatology on the development of Trinitarian thought in the fourth century, we may say: So, he was in fact a theologian whose position shaped the properly Trinitarian aspect of the theological discussion for approximately fifty years.

The Trinitarian debate cannot be understood without the Trinitarian theology of Eusebius. I suppose there are not very many pneumatological passages for which we could claim a similar significance. Works Cited Ayres, L. Nicaea and its Legacy. Forschungen zur Kirchen und Dogmengeschichte Bemerkungen zum Johanneskommentar II,