|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dropping Filioque Clause at JW's Enthronement
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Insufficient for doing anything which it wasn't intended to do, like maintaining a schism in the God's church, for example.
Good - I'm glad you said that. Read on, because we're getting to the bottom of the whole issue here...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe the creeds are God-breathed, but I do believe that they are faithful to what is God-breathed. The question, for me as an evangelical, is whether my understanding of the Filioque is consistent with Scripture. If it is, then I'm happy to say it. If it isn't then I'm not happy to say. For example, I do not believe that Jesus descended into Hell despite what the Apostle's creed says.
...and therein lieth the problem. You may look in your Bible and conclude that the Filioque clause should be included. Your friend, also a Bible-believing christian will open his Bible, and conclude that it shouldn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the Bible at all - nor dispute your claim that it is God-breathed. But are yours and your friend's differing interpretations God-breathed? Such is the problem with Sola Scriptura.
It is necessary to establish what is meant by the Filioque before attempting to argue either for or against it. Now of course, if the meaning of the Filioque is deemed to be consistent with scripture, it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
[ 05. April 2013, 11:48: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe the creeds are God-breathed, but I do believe that they are faithful to what is God-breathed. The question, for me as an evangelical, is whether my understanding of the Filioque is consistent with Scripture. If it is, then I'm happy to say it. If it isn't then I'm not happy to say. For example, I do not believe that Jesus descended into Hell despite what the Apostle's creed says.
...and therein lieth the problem. You may look in your Bible and conclude that the Filioque clause should be included. Your friend, also a Bible-believing christian will open his Bible, and conclude that it shouldn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the Bible at all - nor dispute your claim that it is God-breathed. But are yours and your friend's differing interpretations God-breathed? Such is the problem with Sola Scriptura.
*Bzzzzzzt!* - Argument from Adverse Consequences. Also, I suspect the fallacy of the Excluded Middle is probably on its way any moment.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is necessary to establish what is meant by the Filioque before attempting to argue either for or against it. Now of course, if the meaning of the Filioque is deemed to be consistent with scripture, it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
OK. So what happens when you and your friend (also an evangelical minister) try to ascertain this and come to differing conclusions? Who is right? Who has the Authority to decide? That's the whole unfortunate history of Sola Scriptura in a nutshell, and the reason why there are so many denominations.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*Bzzzzzzt!* - Argument from Adverse Consequences. Also, I suspect the fallacy of the Excluded Middle is probably on its way any moment.
This isn't "Just a Minute" you know, Karl. Are the "Excluded Middle" middle-of-the-roaders?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Woah! Help me understand what you're saying. I'm sure I've made some kind of logical error but I'll need you to explain it to me. Then maybe I can rephrase or clarify what I'm trying to say.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
*Bzzzzzzt!* - Argument from Adverse Consequences. Also, I suspect the fallacy of the Excluded Middle is probably on its way any moment.
This isn't "Just a Minute" you know, Karl. Are the "Excluded Middle" middle-of-the-roaders?
You're cleverer than that Mark.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So what happens when you and your friend (also an evangelical minister) try to ascertain this and come to differing conclusions? Who is right? Who has the Authority to decide? That's the whole unfortunate history of Sola Scriptura in a nutshell, and the reason why there are so many denominations.
Hmm, well, coming back to the Filioque, many evangelicals share the same view on this as that notoriously light-weight institution, the Roman Catholic Church. ![[Cool]](cool.gif) Just sayin' ...
@ Daronmedway: on whether Jesus descended into hell, 1 Peter 4:6 provides intriguing speculation. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is necessary to establish what is meant by the Filioque before attempting to argue either for or against it. Now of course, if the meaning of the Filioque is deemed to be consistent with scripture, it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
It took our Christian forebears about 300 years to work out a doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit that was consonant with Scripture. The decision they came to was "the Holy Spirit ... proceeds from the Father".
The doctrine partly defines how the Persons of the Trinity relate to each other, and to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (even if, possibly, through the Son) confirms the Father as the Person in whom the source of Godhead lies: so there is the Father; the Son who is begotten by the Father; and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
The filioque buggers this up something rotten.
But surely it all comes down to three possibilities. Either the filioque is -
- significant and shouldn't be there (the Orthodox position), or
- significant and should be there (the traditional Western position), or
- not significant
Now, if the CofE thinks it's significant, then it needs to do some hard thinking and decide between the first two options. But if the CofE thinks it isn't significant, then surely the question becomes, should something insignificant, or at least inessential, be in the Creed?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
We have three versions. The Holy Spirit proceeds:-
1. From the Father, (Orthodoxy);
2. From the Father and the Son, (RCC and most Protestants);
3. From the Father through the Son, (agreed at Florence but not adopted by anyone).
The discussion on this thread has been on whether we (or they) should change our version in the interests of ecumenism, or not change it in loyalty to our own side (or a them we'd like to associate ourselves with).
Does any shipmate claim to have sufficient understanding of scripture, pneumatology and core Trinitarian theology to be able to answer all or any of the following questions? Otherwise, I can't help thinking that discussion of the filioque is a bit pointless:-
1. Which version is ontologically correct?
2. Why?
3. What difference does being uncertain or wrong make?
4. Do charismatic theologians, who one would expect to be particularly interested in this, have any fresh take on this?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Woah! Help me understand what you're saying. I'm sure I've made some kind of logical error but I'll need you to explain it to me. Then maybe I can rephrase or clarify what I'm trying to say.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is necessary to establish what is meant by the Filioque before attempting to argue either for or against it. Now of course, if the meaning of the Filioque is deemed to be consistent with scripture, it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded.
Who makes this decision? You, or your minister friend? Supposing you come to differing conclusions?
quote:
This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
You mean you and everyone else make your own minds up how Holy Scripture is to be interpreted?
What happens is that you (along with others) will come to one consensus, another group of people will come to a different consensus, and before you know it a new denomination has appeared. THAT is Sola Scriptura in action, and has been for the last 500 years.
Or are you in fact saying that the problem is that people differ as to what they believe the Filioque Clause means?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Sorry Adeodatus, I was writing my comments while you posted.
Isn't there a fourth bullet point, though;And possibly two more,- did Nicea omit the filioque, because nobody asked the question? or
- did some unknown person in Spain add it to deal with a local problem, without really thinking through the implications?
[ 05. April 2013, 13:19: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What was the purpose of the service? To finally thrash out every last detail of more than eighteen centuries of argument about the Trinity? Or to welcome a new bishop?
Assuming it was the second, lleaving it out was the most practical option. Its not about not offending the Orthodox or anyone else, its about including them in the liturgy as much as possible. Orthodox and Catholic visitors were present. The Orthodox have a theological objection to saying filioque. Catholics and Protestants have no theological objection to not saying it. (After all its not in the Apostle's Creed and we happily use that) So if we are all to be saying the same thing, we have to leave it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To be frank, Mark, I doubt many English Anglicans could give you an account of why the filioque might or might not be included, or how it makes a difference to the doctrine of the Trinity, or why they should care.
The trouble is, there is no agreement as to what it means and there never has been. Not in the English form of the Creed anyway.
I have read a well-argued piece by an Orthodox bishop which claimed that the filioque was heretical because including it showed you had Doctrine X but actually the Church teaches Doctrine Y.
I have read arguments by Catholics saying that the filioque is neccessary because it proves we have Doctrine Y, and if we omit it it shows we really believe Doctrine Z.
So in fact they both believed the same thing about the trinity, but each thought that their own version of the Creed supported that belief and that the other one denied it. That, presumbaly, is because they were each used to arguing against different kinds of opposition to Trinitarianism - or more likely were educated in traditions that had developed arguing against different kinds of opposition to Trinitarianism. Like most Creeds it is meant to exclude heresy rather than include orthodoxy, and different Christians in different times and places encounter different heresies.
Also the doctrines of the Trinity actually held by Anglican thsologians and clergy are - and have been since at least the fashionable Deism of the 17th century - much more varied than the difference between Rome and Constantinople. The Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and John calvin are probably all much closer to each other on the Trinity than they are to the most liberal fraction of the Church of England (though the majority of the CofE will be in agreement with the Chalcedonian doctrine, thee will be a large minority that aren't)
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
]I don't think the schism was caused by the filioque mainly. That was only ever a symptom of the larger problem. The Eastern churches believed supreme authority within Christianity was the joint decisions of the ecumenical councils, while Rome believed that supreme authority rested with them alone in the throne of St Peter.
And on that topic the Anglicans, like the other mainstream Reformation churches, are closer to the Orthodox than the Catholics.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Again, it was never intended to establish doctrine, it is a summary of (Apostolic) doctrine, as you have said yourself.
No it isn't (or rather no they aren't as there is more than one of them) The Creeds were never meant to summarise doctrine. There are many Apostolic doctrines that are nowhere to be found in any Creed. They are meant to exclude heresy. The whole point of them is that they contain lines that believers in certain heretical doctrines could not in good conscience say. So by the time we get to Nicea and Chalcedon we have a sort of summary, not of Apostolic doctrine, but of the most dangerous heresies of the first few centuries - but its a negative summary, a kind of boundary or barrier or shell around the heresies rather than the heresies themselves.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We have three versions. The Holy Spirit proceeds:-
1. From the Father, (Orthodoxy);
2. From the Father and the Son, (RCC and most Protestants);
3. From the Father through the Son, (agreed at Florence but not adopted by anyone).
Your summary of the statement of the Council of Florence is incorrect. They wrote: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom He is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." (I could probably dig up a better reference, but this is from here after a quick google, and is in line with what I remember.) Florence is hence in no way opposed to the Latin filioque, rather it explains the "and" by a "through", thus basically bringing the vast majority of Church Fathers (including from the East) into witness for this "explained" Latin position. If you want a pithy abbreviation, it would have to be "from the Father and through the Son".
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does any shipmate claim to have sufficient understanding of scripture, pneumatology and core Trinitarian theology to be able to answer all or any of the following questions? Otherwise, I can't help thinking that discussion of the filioque is a bit pointless:-
1. Which version is ontologically correct?
2. Why?
3. What difference does being uncertain or wrong make?
4. Do charismatic theologians, who one would expect to be particularly interested in this, have any fresh take on this?
I will only address 1. and 2., since they are basically trivial. The key question is how one can assert the Trinity, without falling into the errors of either Modalism or Tritheism.
In order to keep Christianity a monotheistic religion, one has to assert that there is only one God. Thus there cannot be any essential feature that separates say God the Father from God the Son. However, there cannot be any accidental features in God at all. Basically there cannot be anything that causes God the Father to be black, but God the Son to be white, or any such nonsense. God is the Uncaused Cause, there is nothing that can impose accidents on God. So we have to say that there is no distinguishing features between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. You cannot tell them apart in their Godhead, hence one can talk of one God.
Imagine now that you have to place three dots on a piece of paper. But you are not allowed to make these dots in any way differ. They must be the same size, they cannot have different colours, you cannot attach any label to them, etc.: considered as dots, they must be totally identical. That's the analogy to having just one God. How would you then differentiate them? Well, you presumably would be inclined to simply draw them in three different spatial positions. But of course God does not have a "spatial position"! Indeed, by placing the dots in different spots, you are attaching a kind of label, namely a positional label. But I said you are not allowed to do that. Then you would have to put them all on top of each other, and how could you tell them apart? Something has to happen here.
How can we say that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit, if they are all identical in the Godhead? Well, there's one thing and one thing only, that can differentiate them without imposing any feature on them (which cannot be). And that's a relationship of origin. It does not change who I am to say that I'm my father's son, and my son's father. I'm always just me. But those relationships are sufficient to distinguish my father from my son nevertheless. (Of course, my actual father and my actual son also can be distinguished by their accidental features, like their current age. But the point is that I can also use my relationships to them to distinguish them.) In our analogy, you are now allowed to draw an arrow from one dot to another. And in this way (in the analogy) you are actually allowed to use the space of the paper. You just have to remind yourself that you can put the points on different spots on the paper only to symbolise the beginning and end of a "relationship arrow", you are not allowed to use the space label as such (drawing points in different spots without an arrow separating them).
So if you have two points, how many arrows does one need to keep them apart? Well, one, obviously. So if we tried to establish a Binity, rather than a Trinity, one relationship of origin would do: if there were only the Father and the Son, it would be enough to say "The Son comes from the Father." That would keep them apart, in spite of both being God.
But now we have three points, how many arrows does one need to keep them apart? Two perhaps? If I say "X comes from the Father" and I say as well "Y comes from the Father", two arrows, then I have not yet said why X should not be identical to Y! Remember there's nothing to distinguish X from Y other than a relationship of origin, but I have not provided such a relationship yet. So I must say something in addition, for example, "Y comes from X," a third arrow. Then obviously I can distinguish Y and X. And I can also distinguish both from the Father, by virtue of the first two arrows. So all are now distinct and Modalism is avoided. Of course, Y is simply the Holy Spirit and X is the Son. So this is the picture:
code:
.........Father
............/\
.........../..\
..........v....v
Holy Spirit <- Son
You can see immediately that the Father is the ultimate root of all (monarchy). You can see immediately that viewed from the position of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit comes from both Father and Son (filioque). You can see immediately that the coming from the Son is a continuation of the flow from the Father to the Son, you can take the right branch from the Father "through" the Son to the Holy Spirit (Council of Florence). It's all in perfect harmony with the vast majority of Church Fathers, East and West. It avoids Tritheism and Modalism, and only this can.
I honestly believe that this is perfectly watertight. All counter-argument necessarily either commits outright heresy, or simply does not understand the moves that were made. In particular: I cannot simply say that I can distinguish by the names. If I say "the Son comes from the Father" and "the Holy Spirit comes from the Father", then it is not clear that I have made two distinct statements. The mere use of two labels does not guarantee distinctness. If I call our dog Fido, and my wife calls him Wolf, then this does not create two dogs, but simply one dog with two names. You have to say why "the Son" is not "the Holy Spirit", beyond simply the label. And you cannot say anything that would differentiate their Godhead, or you become a Tritheist. You cannot leave them undifferentiated, or you are a Modalist. So you must add another relationship of origin.
Likewise, it is bollocks to differentiate according to different labels attached to the relationship of origin. Sometimes the procession of the Son from the Father is called "generation", whereas the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is called "spiration". But this is again mere naming. This does not as such differentiate these processions. They both indicate simple a relationship of origin, and they are given different labels because we can differentiate their targets (generation belongs to the Son, spiration to the Holy Spirit). But if these labels attach because of the differentiation, we surely cannot use them to argue for a differentiation. That's circular. And we cannot impose any "special features" on these processions without assigning them to the Godhead of the Person that arises, which we must not do. We cannot say that "generation" contains some intrinsic feature of "Son-ness" (beyond simply pointing from the Father to the Son), because the only way it could do so is if the Son received this feature. And He does not, His Godhead remains undifferentiated against that of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
So IMHO that's just it, that's the plain truth. All the rest is ecclesiastical politicking.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Wonders never cease. IngoB I find myself both understanding and agreeing with you. The only slight query I have is whether the distinction between 'being begotten' and 'proceeding' is quite as insignificant as you suggest.
Is there someone who can explain this in the same terms from an Orthodox standpoint, as to whether your explanation fits their understanding as well?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It is necessary to establish what is meant by the Filioque before attempting to argue either for or against it. Now of course, if the meaning of the Filioque is deemed to be consistent with scripture, it should be included. If not, then it should be excluded. This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
OK. So what happens when you and your friend (also an evangelical minister) try to ascertain this and come to differing conclusions? Who is right? Who has the Authority to decide? That's the whole unfortunate history of Sola Scriptura in a nutshell, and the reason why there are so many denominations.
I think this is an inaccurate characterisation of how the principle of sola scriptura is understood to work. Sola scriptura isn't about a "me and my bible" approach to the formulation of ecclesiastical doctrine. Sola scriptura is simply the assertion that ecclesiastical doctrine must only be established and articulated on the basis of rigorous scriptural exegesis. There is reason to believe that this wasn't the modus operandi of the ecumenical councils.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm sorry. That final sentence should read, "There is no reason to etc."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
There's an interesting comment on this blog, in the comments section from someone called Fr Patrick:
quote:
Whatever the justifications and arguments that can be set forth in defence of the filioque, it doesn’t remove the problem that it is a distorted understanding of the Trinity. It is a very different Trinity to that where the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The main difficulty, and there are many, that I have is that the double procession implies that the Spirit proceeds to something exterior to both the Father and the Son but there is no exterior and hence no procession. The term becomes meaningless and confused with begetting. Rather the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, and rests in Him. It strengthens the understanding that the Persons of the Trinity are all interior to each other and One. This makes sense of procession and makes clear its distinction from begetting.
(emphasis mine)
I can't say that I like the title of the page of this blog, but I agree with this comment. The love of God is eternal precisely because it exists between the Father and the Son by the Spirit. This love cannot be detached from the relationship within the Trinity. When we come into the love of God we are not given a dollop of something from out of God, but rather we are brought into this relationship. Hence the need to be in Christ. So we receive the Holy Spirit, because Christ receives Him.
Therefore I think "from the Father to the Son" (and back again) is correct, when we think about the nature of God's grace, and particularly His eternal love (which, as it happens, is the one characteristic of God which best explains the Trinity).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I don't believe the creeds are God-breathed, but I do believe that they are faithful to what is God-breathed. The question, for me as an evangelical, is whether my understanding of the Filioque is consistent with Scripture. If it is, then I'm happy to say it. If it isn't then I'm not happy to say. For example, I do not believe that Jesus descended into Hell despite what the Apostle's creed says.
...and therein lieth the problem. You may look in your Bible and conclude that the Filioque clause should be included. Your friend, also a Bible-believing christian will open his Bible, and conclude that it shouldn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the Bible at all - nor dispute your claim that it is God-breathed. But are yours and your friend's differing interpretations God-breathed? Such is the problem with Sola Scriptura.
Article 8 of the 39 Articles says: quote:
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
This is more subtle an argument than it seems. It is saying that the creeds ought to be accepted but only because they are consistent with scripture, not because they are old, or because they were formulated by an ecumenical council, or for any other reason. This is because the authority of the creeds is not derived from any other provenance, including tradition. This is why it is possible to accept the creeds but legimiately reject certain ideas of the early church fathers for example.
[ 05. April 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can't say that I like the title of the page of this blog, but I agree with this comment.
Really? On what grounds? It makes an entirely baseless assertion, namely that the double procession somehow has to be "external" to God. This is simply complete nonsense. There is no reason why the double precession should be any more external to God than the single procession, and no reason is given. Actually, what "Fr Patrick" claims there is likely heretical: "Rather the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, and rests in Him." That sounds as if it would diminish the Holy Spirit to something lesser than the Son or the Father, namely to something like a grace passed between Father and Son. Rubbish. The Holy Spirit is truly God, and exists as Divine Person in just the same distinguishable way as the Father and the Son. This comment is supported by never actually defining any terms. "Fr Patrick" does not tell us what he thinks "procession" actually entails. Why is that? Because once one states what it is about, the rest falls into place effortlessly. And there really is only one way it can go.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The love of God is eternal precisely because it exists between the Father and the Son by the Spirit. This love cannot be detached from the relationship within the Trinity.
You've just made St Augustine's spiritual case for the filioque there! Yes indeed, one can arrive at the correct description by other means than those of "theo-logic". The only problem here is that you associate the Augustinian position with "Fr Patrick", misled by his entirely unsupported - and simply false - assertion that the double procession would take us somehow "out of God". This is as random as saying that being a father to my son and a son to my father takes me "out of the family". No it doesn't, why would it?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When we come into the love of God we are not given a dollop of something from out of God, but rather we are brought into this relationship.
In a manner of speaking. But our relationship to the Trinity is not precisely of the same kind as the intra-Trinitarian relationships themselves. On that, RCs and Orthodox certainly agree.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm sorry. That final sentence should read, "There is no reason to etc."
Yes, daronmedway - it makes a difference, the Bible coming out of Holy Tradition, as did the liturgy and creeds, yes?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Mysteriously I find myself agreeing with daronmedway and ingob and enoch. This is weird.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm sorry. That final sentence should read, "There is no reason to etc."
Yes, daronmedway - it makes a difference, the Bible coming out of Holy Tradition, as did the liturgy and creeds, yes?
Somewhat predictably, I would say no. Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I watched the enthronement on BBC TV and I remember Huw Edwards commenting on the creed just before it as recited and he said something like that it was the original version that didn't include the filioque. It stood out to me at the time and I think it was meant to be the original version of the creed that was universally acceptable.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
What other words have you redefined?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Somewhat predictably, I would say no. Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
How did I guess you would say that? But you misunderstand what we mean by "Holy Tradition" - Jesus didn't just give His Apostles Bibles you know, before he sent them out into the world, when He gave them The Great Commission.
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. The Bible is the means (or one means) by which this is accomplished.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
What other words have you redefined?
I wouldn't say that I've redefined it. I'm saying how I understand it. I don't really know how Orthodoxy would define Tradition, but in my experience of Orthodoxy I very much doubt that there is a clear definition. Orgbodox seems to fight shy of tight definitions of anything. In which case, my "definition", if that's what it is, would stand as equally valid against other definitions regardless of how well disposed people might be towards it, especially if it is by definition at odds with their worldview.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Somewhat predictably, I would say no. Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
How did I guess you would say that? But you misunderstand what we mean by "Holy Tradition" - Jesus didn't just give His Apostles Bibles you know, before he sent them out into the world, when He gave them The Great Commission.
I don't think so. The vast majority of scripture existed before the earthly ministry of Christ. Christ himself was spiritually formed by his engagement with those Scriptures. The apostles in turn were formed by that same engagement as their writings prove.
Also, I believe that Scripture is the only reason that the church - in every generation - knows what the great commission is. It seems obvious to me that Tradition is subordinate to Scripture precisely because the Great Commission to which you refer is - by definition - a reference to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28 and parallel passages. The scripture is the final benchmark and arbiter of the definition, nothing else.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I can't say that I like the title of the page of this blog, but I agree with this comment.
Really? On what grounds?
When we are thinking about the internal workings of God, we are, of course, "looking through a glass darkly", and common sense logic tells us that we are dealing with an area of intellectual enquiry most of which is beyond human understanding. Therefore I have to tread carefully (as I think we all do), and my agreement with the comment from that blog is somewhat of a personal opinion. Like I said, I don't like the title of the page from that blog (Catholic sophistry), because that is unnecessarily inflammatory and anti-Catholic, but I appreciate where "Fr. Patrick" is coming from. I chose to quote this, because he voiced an idea which has been a concern of mine.
I am sure that the filioque clause could be interpreted in a way that satisfies both East and West, but my concern is with the immediate psychological effect of this wording in the reciting of the creed. Naturally - and anthropomorphically - we 'see' God "up there" - superior and in authority (which is, of course, right). But we also believe in a God who engages with us and gives us His grace.
Now the question is: how does God come to us?
We think of His Holy Spirit being poured out on us (and I sincerely hope that this is a real experience to Christian worshippers, and not merely something imagined or visualised). So when we say: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son...", there could be a tendency to 'see' the Son of God as somehow not immanent with us, but merely an authority figure, who, with the Father, bestows grace on us in the form of the Holy Spirit. But this is not the biblical position, in which the Church is the Body of Christ, and "Christ in us" is "the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints" (Col. 1:26-27).
The filioque clause smacks of an authoritarian view of God, in which the status of each member of the Godhead is the primary concern. I don't think questions of inferiority and superiority mean anything within the eternal God of love. Power, position and status are a carnal human obsession (which is implied in Mark 10:35-45). I don't think that it is incumbent on us to try, by our theology and through our formulations, to prove to the Father that His Son is equal to him. We need to accept the revelation of the grace of God which flows from His love: that God the Father has given us His Son, who now lives in all those who believe, and therefore we have been brought into that love, which has existed for all eternity.
The filioque clause tends to put Christ somehow "up there" - away from us. And this then implies that there needs to be some mediator between Him and us. Hence a certain authoritarian view of the Church: an institution that somehow seeks to manage and control the Spirit and grace of God.
So the idea of God the Father and God the Son being together "up there", and from them the Spirit flows to us, implies that we are not brought into that eternal relationship which defines the love of God, and which is the reality of the love of God. Rather, it implies that we, as believers, are somehow existing in an external spiritual realm, into which the Holy Spirit is sent. Where is the concept of "Christ in us" in that model? Where is the immanence of Christ? Where is the sense of Christ being "down here" with and in His Body, enabling us to relate to the Father, by the Spirit?
Now I suppose you could argue that the Spirit "proceeds from the Son", while upholding the immanence of Christ, because 'procession' could be interpreted as the Spirit returning to the Father from the Son. Thus the concept of 'procession' would indicate the reciprocity of love between the Father and the Son.
I'm not going to "fight to the death" with anyone here about this subject, because, as I say, it is a mystery anyway, but these are just my thoughts about how this clause can have relevance for the Christian life in how we view God and also view the nature and role of the Church.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Somewhat predictably, I would say no. Tradition, as I understand it, is simply an aspect of the temporal processes by which liturgy and creed are tested for conformity to the progressive revelation of Scripture.
How did I guess you would say that? But you misunderstand what we mean by "Holy Tradition" - Jesus didn't just give His Apostles Bibles you know, before he sent them out into the world, when He gave them The Great Commission.
I don't think so. The vast majority of scripture existed before the earthly ministry of Christ. Christ himself was spiritually formed by his engagement with those Scriptures. The apostles in turn were formed by that same engagement as their writings prove.
Also, I believe that Scripture is the only reason that the church - in every generation - knows what the great commission is. It seems obvious to me that Tradition is subordinate to Scripture precisely because the Great Commission to which you refer is - by definition - a reference to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28 and parallel passages. The scripture is the final benchmark and arbiter of the definition, nothing else.
Tradition is not something separate or parallel to scriptures. Simply tradition is the scriptures properly understood in the life of the Church, such as in the ancient liturgies, the canons and councils, the Fathers and the lives of the saints.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm happy to agree with this, but only if it is ackowledged that this Tradition is fallible and thus legitimately open to correction and reformation by the body of Christ in each generation.
[ 07. April 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm happy to agree with this, but only if it is ackowledged that this Tradition is fallible and thus legitimately open to correction and reformation by the body of Christ in each generation.
Well, then this is where our understanding of tradition diverges. Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible. Of course, we must test the Spirit, a good example of which are the councils of the Church which were only determined to be ecumenical by virtue of having been accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits thereof.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Surely what is all boils down to is the "sledghammer to crack a nut" tendency (aka Kinnock Syndrome) or why use 5 words when 10 will do?
The Filioque controversy is nothing of the sort - it was used as a fig-leaf to explain the failure of the two mediaeval church Councils.
My Greek Archimandrite friend tells me he believes in the essence of Filioque but he, and fellow orthodox, don't feel it either needs to be said or underlined - and certainly not argued about.
What I found more impressive about the ABofC's enthronement was the explicit mentioning of the anniversary of Cranmer's martyrdom... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) not sure if our RC friends were entirely comfortable then...!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm happy to agree with this, but only if it is ackowledged that this Tradition is fallible and thus legitimately open to correction and reformation by the body of Christ in each generation.
Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible.
On what authority are you able make this assertion? The problem, ISTM, is that you can't quote anything from Scripture to justify the assertion without implicitly acknowledging the primacy of Scripture and thereby nullifying your argument!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One could equally ask you the same question, Daronmedway - on what authority are you making your assertions? That of scripture? Or your personal interpretation of scripture?
I'm neither RC nor Orthodox but it does strike me that scripture doesn't exist/operate in a vacuum - you can't isolate scripture from the communities of faith into which it came into being ...
Even if one believes in the primacy of scripture then it surely isn't scripture in a vacuum?
If it's true that it's up to the Body of Christ to reinterpret or correct tradition (or Tradition) in each generation then you are effectively saying that it's the Church (however defined) that is bigger than Tradition ... fine ...
The Church (or churches) are the both the depository and preservers of traditions and Tradition ... so this is beginning to sound like a circular argument.
Of course the RCs and the Orthodox quote scripture to support their assertions about Tradition. What else would they cite? They believe that Tradition is consonant with scripture - and they do believe in the primacy of scripture - that scripture is authorative if you like - but scripture in the context of the living tradition of the faith community into which it was given.
They wouldn't regard an appeal to scripture as nullifying their argument at all - quite the contrary.
Why? Because they have a both/and view and not a kind of rather scholastic either/or view.
I certainly accept scripture as primary and authoritative, but I'm not hubristic enough to believe that my personal 'take' on it is authoritative - and neither, I suspect, are you.
Which is why I suspect that your position might more accurately be described not so much as a 'sola scriptura' one but as a 'sola scriptura as interpreted within the light of my own particular tradition' one.
I don't see any way around that.
I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, simply stating what seems to me to be axiomatic. That you are interpreting scripture through a particular lens - in your case a pretty Reformed 'take' on the Anglican position as represented by the 39 Articles as originally conceived and delivered by the founding fathers of Anglicanism.
Which is fine, of course, as long as you realise that's what you're doing and that this is a just as much a 'take' and tradition as any other 'take' and tradition might be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible.
If Tradition is formed by the work of the Holy Spirit (infallible and without sin) in the collective hearts and doings of people (fallible and sinful) how do you distinguish between that part of the Tradition which is the infallible work of the Holy Spirit, and that part of the Tradition which is contaminated by human fallibility and sin?
To put it another way, what is Tradition and what is just tradition?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
On what authority are you able make this assertion? The problem, ISTM, is that you can't quote anything from Scripture to justify the assertion without implicitly acknowledging the primacy of Scripture and thereby nullifying your argument!
How does that nullify it? One can think Scripture is the primary or bedrock or central pillar (pick your metaphor) of Tradition; that doesn't nullify the position that it is part of Tradition and all of Tradition is authoritative. You might as well argue that because the branches depend on the trunk, the branches are not part of the tree.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible.
If Tradition is formed by the work of the Holy Spirit (infallible and without sin) in the collective hearts and doings of people (fallible and sinful) how do you distinguish between that part of the Tradition which is the infallible work of the Holy Spirit, and that part of the Tradition which is contaminated by human fallibility and sin?
To put it another way, what is Tradition and what is just tradition?
Eh? Couldn't you argue the same concerning the sacred scriptures? But then I already gave an example of how the Church tests the Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
If this is the answer, I can only say 'up to a point Lord Copper'.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
.... Of course, we must test the Spirit, a good example of which are the councils of the Church which were only determined to be ecumenical by virtue of having been accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits thereof.
If something is truly Tradition and infallible only if the whole Church has recognised it as such, what is there since Nicea II in 787 that meets that test? Is everything that people accept as being part of the Tradition since then, in some way not-tradition? Or what? Alternatively, if you are saying it is quote:
the scriptures properly understood in the life of the Church, such as in the ancient liturgies, the canons and councils, the Fathers and the lives of the saints
some elements of that are more authoritative than others. The Fathers are not unanimous on everything. Some saints' lives contain material that almost no one would regard as other than fanciful.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible.
If Tradition is formed by the work of the Holy Spirit (infallible and without sin) in the collective hearts and doings of people (fallible and sinful) how do you distinguish between that part of the Tradition which is the infallible work of the Holy Spirit, and that part of the Tradition which is contaminated by human fallibility and sin?
To put it another way, what is Tradition and what is just tradition?
Eh? Couldn't you argue the same concerning the sacred scriptures? But then I already gave an example of how the Church tests the Spirit.
A sincere, somewhat-relevant question (for anyone) from someone outside the mainstream who is unclear about what the mainstream views are regarding the leading of the Holy Spirit: is it more of an all-or-nothing proposition, either you are lead or you aren't? Or is it more of a matter of degree, leading in a direction more or less toward God rather than leading to a specific end result? If it's the former, does being lead by the Holy Spirit always result in exactly what God intended, or is the result affected by human free choice? If it's the latter, is there a theoretical possibility of something like one of the creeds being improved? Or am I framing the question in the wrong way?
I understand (and agree) about the Holy Spirit not being fallible, and that the Holy Spirit's leading can apply equally to Scripture and to Tradition, but I'm unclear about the observable results. Can they still be "up for discussion" even if they are the results of the Holy Spirit's leading?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
On what authority are you able make this assertion? The problem, ISTM, is that you can't quote anything from Scripture to justify the assertion without implicitly acknowledging the primacy of Scripture and thereby nullifying your argument!
How does that nullify it? One can think Scripture is the primary or bedrock or central pillar (pick your metaphor) of Tradition; that doesn't nullify the position that it is part of Tradition and all of Tradition is authoritative. You might as well argue that because the branches depend on the trunk, the branches are not part of the tree.
Perhaps nullify is too strong a word. It seems to contradict it. Sola scriptura, as I understand it, does not deny the place of tradition (and other "pillars") in the formulation of doctrine and church practice. It simply asserts that in matters of controversy over doctrine the faithful exegesis of Scripture trumps tradition, reason and experience. In this respect I am happy to accept the primacy of scripture as you have described it as long as that primacy includes at least the potential for reform of doctrines and church practices which - regardless of what Tradition says - are clearly incompatible with a close and careful reading of Scripture. Also, it seems to me that this rather nebulous notion of Tradition has a tendency to demote the primacy Scripture to something notional, rather than establishing it's exposition as the final arbiter of doctrine and practice.
[ 08. April 2013, 09:00: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Again, Daronmedway, whilst what you're saying obviously resonates with me as a Protestant Christian (rather than an RC or Orthodox one), it does surely beg a few questions?
You are presupposing, for instance, that there is a single, faithful exegesis of scripture ... which ultimately boils down, surely, to 'my exegesis is faithful and that other guy's isn't ...'
I'm thinking, for instance, of the various different 'takes' on predestination/free will and soteriology etc that can be found even within Protestantism ... and all of which have proponents who would claim to be putting forward a faithful exegesis.
It would be very cynical - and probably inaccurate of me - to suggest that 'faithful exegesis' very often boils down to 'those aspects which I like and which I agree with rather than those which I don't.'
But I can't help but feel that personal subjectivity then becomes the final arbiter rather than what one might imagine to be faithful exegesis.
Of course, all Protestants could accuse the RCs or the Orthodox perhaps of being subjective and disregarding certain aspects or emphases that Protestants have become convinced of - but this is a two-edged sword. Where does a faithful exegesis of scripture end and a 'I-believe-this-because-it-is-my-individual-subjective-opinion' position start?
I'm sure you would agree that there has to be some kind of 'collective' aspect, a 'that believed everywhere and at all times and by all' kind of approach somewhere along the line? Even if that is defined rather loosely in places?
Otherwise it becomes a matter of personal subjectivity where the final arbiter isn't scripture itself but our own individual 'take' on scripture which may be influenced by any number of things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm sure you would agree that there has to be some kind of 'collective' aspect, a 'that believed everywhere and at all times and by all' kind of approach somewhere along the line? Even if that is defined rather loosely in places?
Otherwise it becomes a matter of personal subjectivity where the final arbiter isn't scripture itself but our own individual 'take' on scripture which may be influenced by any number of things.
For me, the difference is that most so-called 'sola scriptura' people will acknowledge that their particular interpretation of the Bible may well be wrong in places. Indeed, is certain to be wrong in places.
By contrast, plenty (ISTM) of those who emphasise the role of tradition (or Tradition, as they'd have it) claim superiority and a kind of infallibility for their tradition. Look upthread at some of the comments - there's an implication of superiority for the tradition that has survived (although that's a myth, ISTM; there is no single surviving tradition) because 'God promised to guide his Church'. A sort of 'history is written by the winners' mentality.
I'm with daronmedway - if tradition and Bible seem to be in conflict then I'll go with the Bible. But this certainly must be done with due regard to context, historical analysis and so on - I'm not proposing a literalistic adherence to the plain words of the Bible, because it's not a simple book!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you misunderstand what we mean by "Holy Tradition" - Jesus didn't just give His Apostles Bibles you know, before he sent them out into the world, when He gave them The Great Commission.
Well, yes, but as someone already said they already had most of the Scriptures hundreds of years before that.
quote:
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.
Yes. And the ancient Scrfiptures are better witnesses to that Holy Tradition that Jesus gave the Apostles than the teachings of bishops and preachers and theologians are. So it is right to judge such teachings by the Scriptures. That is defending Tradition, not opposing it.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Perhaps nullify is too strong a word. It seems to contradict it. Sola scriptura, as I understand it, does not deny the place of tradition (and other "pillars") in the formulation of doctrine and church practice. It simply asserts that in matters of controversy over doctrine the faithful exegesis of Scripture trumps tradition, reason and experience. In this respect I am happy to accept the primacy of scripture as you have described it as long as that primacy includes at least the potential for reform of doctrines and church practices which - regardless of what Tradition says - are clearly incompatible with a close and careful reading of Scripture.
Yes exactly.
(Though I would leave the word "reason" out of "Scripture trumps tradition, reason and experience", as reason is the tool we use to think about things, not a source of knowledge - an Orthodox worshipper whi trusts their bishop or priest to be telling them about Holy Tradition is using their reason to understand what the bishop is saying, just as much as as a liberal theologian users reason to think abiut their experiences of the world, a Charismatic uses reason to think about their spiritual experiences, or a Bible-Protestant type uses reason to understand the texts they are reading - forgive the stereotypes because of course all Christians use all those things really, those kinds of knowledge are not limited to just one denomination or tradition)
And another thing I've said here before, the 39 Articles put it wonderfully:
quote:
Article 6
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation
Its very clearly explained: "not to be required". Not "not to be believed" or even "not to be taught". This does not claim that all knowledge is in Scripture, or that all knowledge can be proved by Scripture, or that nothing can be known from experience or introspection or extra-Biblical tradition. It does not demand that all Christians believe or teach the same doctrines. (one of the great triumps of the Reformation). It does not rule out speculation, superstition, local traditions, new theologies, diversity of opinion. All it does is propose a test for any doctrine that we want to require Christians, to believe. One that lay people can and do use to test their preachers and priests.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, the difference is that most so-called 'sola scriptura' people will acknowledge that their particular interpretation of the Bible may well be wrong in places. Indeed, is certain to be wrong in places.
By contrast, plenty (ISTM) of those who emphasise the role of tradition (or Tradition, as they'd have it) claim superiority and a kind of infallibility for their tradition.
Yes. Exactly this.
And how do I know which all these different competing Holy Traditions is the right one anyway? Because some bishop says so? Which bishop?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
You are presupposing, for instance, that there is a single, faithful exegesis of scripture ... which ultimately boils down, surely, to 'my exegesis is faithful and that other guy's isn't ...'
Yes, I do believe there is only one faithful exegesis of Scripture. The task of the church, therefore, in every generation (and here I mean the church catholic) is to continually test itself to see that it is faithfully seeking that one exegesis. I am not claiming to have a monopoly on that one true reading, but it is my aim to continually seek that one true reading. This should involve as much listening to other points of view as possible, and if possible a continual conversation between differing tradtions of Christianity. A genuine mutual striving for this one faithful reading with true willingness to change one's mind, ISTM, is the only grounds upon which true ecumenical conversation can take place.
[ 08. April 2013, 15:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, daronmedway, ken and South Coast Kevin - I can see all of that - but surely what we end up, on both sides of this discussion - is competing traditions (or Traditions) on the one hand or competing exegesis on the other.
I don't believe that it is possible to have scripture without tradition of some kind - whether small t or Big T, because as soon as you have two or more people believing the same things you've got the basis for a tradition ...
So, arguably, what we've ended up with is two competing Big T Traditions (RC and Orthodox) on the one hand and lots of competing mini-traditions (Protestant) on the other ... by which I mean all the -isms ... Puritanism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism, liberalism, whatever-else-ism ...
Of course, there's a dogmatic core of Tradition (let's not be shy of the T word, because we all use it) to which most 'mainstream' Trinitarian churches and individual believers adhere - the part of the Venn Diagram, if you like, where we all overlap.
So yes, to that extent I do believe that there is a core deposit of beliefs which 'containeth everything necessary for salvation' as it were in 39 Articles terms.
It strikes me, though, that the RCs and the Orthodox also have a sense of that and do distinguish between that which is 'required' and that which is negotiable ... it's just that they draw the line in different places both from one another and from most Protestants.
I can't remember the term the Orthodox use for this, but I've certainly heard them make this kind of distinction.
I s'pose the issue then is where we might claim that certain traditions are not commensurate with scripture ... and that's where you pays your money and you makes your choice.
Credo-baptists would claim that paedo-baptists were unscriptural whereas paedo-baptists would claim scriptural support - if only by analogy - for their position. And so it goes on ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
In an abortive programme of liturgical reform after King Billy deivered us... it was suggested the Cof E should drop the filioque in order to maintain relations with the Orthodox. It all came to nothing, but it shows that the question is not a new one in the CofE. Filioque spread from Spain to northern europe, but by-passed Rome, and a succession of popes disallowed it:one of them set up silver plaques with the text without filioque in both Greek and Latin in the altar area of St Peters. They disappeared when Charlemagne gained the pre-eminence. Later popes affirmeed the filioque, so now you cannot be a good RC and deny it, but in the Eastern rite RC churches it is used or ommitted by local authority. In view of John 15:16 I can see no case at all for filioque. In John 16:7 Our Lord tells us he sends the Spirit - that is mission, not procession. When I was CofE I comforted myself that mission could be construed as a Kind Of procession. It was doubtless the influence of St Augustine of Hippo that persuaded the refrormers to keep the filioque - it fitted well with his understanding of the Trinity.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
Most, if not all, Eastern Catholics have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed at the direction of Rome following Vatican II, so it isn't really that big a deal for Catholics.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
A sincere, somewhat-relevant question (for anyone) from someone outside the mainstream who is unclear about what the mainstream views are regarding the leading of the Holy Spirit: is it more of an all-or-nothing proposition, either you are lead or you aren't? Or is it more of a matter of degree, leading in a direction more or less toward God rather than leading to a specific end result? If it's the former, does being lead by the Holy Spirit always result in exactly what God intended, or is the result affected by human free choice? If it's the latter, is there a theoretical possibility of something like one of the creeds being improved? Or am I framing the question in the wrong way?
I understand (and agree) about the Holy Spirit not being fallible, and that the Holy Spirit's leading can apply equally to Scripture and to Tradition, but I'm unclear about the observable results. Can they still be "up for discussion" even if they are the results of the Holy Spirit's leading?
Hi,
Sorry for the delay of my reply. With regards to your first paragraph, heresies have always sprung up within the Church to which the Church has responded. The Holy Spirit aids the Church to discern the truth in order to combat such heresies, usually in the form of a council of bishops some of which were subsequently recognised as being ecumenical. This is the Holy Spirit leading his Church into all truth. It is growth without change, dogmatic theology in action.
With regards to your second paragraph, those councils judged to have been ecumenical are not up for discussion.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
