UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Thanks Arethosemyfeet - that actually makes sense of it (from an Anglican perspective at least.)
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think the filioque clause being optional makes perfect sense - Anglicanism holds the ancient creeds and the first four ecumenical councils to be authoritative. It's perfectly acceptable for people to believe more than those creeds and councils state. For the official position to be "we're not sure but we respect that people sincerely hold a number of views" is quintessentially Anglican. That's broadly the position on Eucharistic theology, after all.
quote:But this isn't the Anglican way, and I must say I like that. Personally I have no idea what to think about the filioque and I think that people who take strong views one way or the other either a) over-value their own ability to discern or b) belong to a tradition with a strong lead on the matter.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The CofE needs to do what it likes least: some hard-headed theology. We either believe the filioque or we don't; it's either in or it's out.
quote:So why have a creed at all? Or at least, if the filioque is up for grabs, what else might be?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But this isn't the Anglican way, and I must say I like that. Personally I have no idea what to think about the filioque and I think that people who take strong views one way or the other either a) over-value their own ability to discern or b) belong to a tradition with a strong lead on the matter.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The CofE needs to do what it likes least: some hard-headed theology. We either believe the filioque or we don't; it's either in or it's out.
Since we don't have b) in the CofE, why should we feel we need to pretend a)? What is wrong with admitting that we don't really know?
quote:Well, nothing that was in the original creed, as agreed by the universal church at Nicaea and confirmed at Constantinople.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
if the filioque is up for grabs, what else might be?
quote:Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm buggered if I've ever seen the significance of it. I daresay it has some, must have in 1054, but I really can't get excited about it either way.
quote:I am still of the opinion that it is more important to state what the Anglican Church believes, than to worry about who might be offended. But then, as we have said, that is quintessentially Anglican.
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
...The situation in question is slightly different in that it took place in an Anglican church and service, but the principle that the important matter of the filioque should be dropped for the (more) important sake of concern for the guests present seems entirely reasonable and right.
quote:OK - fine by me, so what's to stop the Anglican Church from taking the initiative and permanently changing their version of the Nicene Creed accordingly?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Now, I consider the filioque to be a complete non-issue. It could be re-written so that the Orthodox have no chance of refusing it ("from the Father and through the Son") because then all the witness of the Fathers would be assured, without destroying the necessary truth that Latin theology has identified. This could be done in some joint ceremony, healing the justified complaint that the change was unilateral (that was not formally wrong by Latin standards, but certainly not "nice" or "wise")...
quote:I don't think most people have claimed it's unimportant, only uncertain. There is a difference between not knowing and not caring. Given that we don't know it seems reasonable not to insist we do when by not insisting we can avoid poking our fellow Christians in the eye when we've invited them to share in our celebration. Some poking in the eye is inevitable, but it should be minimised where possible.
we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
quote:I don't think that being agnostic regarding the filioque is a slippery slope towards questioning the divinity of Christ. And even if it is, the logical extension of your reasoning is that we ought to express absolute certainty about any issue in order to take a clear position, demonstrate it matters, and avoid falling into unbelief.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So why have a creed at all? Or at least, if the filioque is up for grabs, what else might be?
quote:A nicely put distinction between not knowing and not caring.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think most people have claimed it's unimportant, only uncertain.
quote:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
quote:Hmm, that's not very fair to Anglicans!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What does this look like?
Filioque Clause in Nicene Creed:
Roman Catholics - included
Eastern Orthodox - excluded
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Even liberal ones. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit and the Logos / Christ are two different Persons, but the same God? If so, then you already believe in the filioque, whether you realise that or not. The same can be said about the Orthodox.
Now, I consider the filioque to be a complete non-issue. It could be re-written so that the Orthodox have no chance of refusing it ("from the Father and through the Son") because then all the witness of the Fathers would be assured, without destroying the necessary truth that Latin theology has identified. This could be done in some joint ceremony, healing the justified complaint that the change was unilateral (that was not formally wrong by Latin standards, but certainly not "nice" or "wise").
quote:Nothing, of course. In fact, if they officially adopted a "compromise version" that has a real potential to bridge the EO/RCC rift, then conceivably they would have a chance to shape global Church history - rather than being a lengthy English footnote to it. But I'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - fine by me, so what's to stop the Anglican Church from taking the initiative and permanently changing their version of the Nicene Creed accordingly?
quote:What is wrong with "trying not to offend people" concerning doubtful, controversial and disputed matters?
Originally posted by Mark Betts
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
quote:Perhaps someone should suggest it to Justin Welby - I'm sure somewhere on the C of E website there must be a forum for suggestions to the AB of C.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Nothing, of course. In fact, if they officially adopted a "compromise version" that has a real potential to bridge the EO/RCC rift, then conceivably they would have a chance to shape global Church history - rather than being a lengthy English footnote to it. But I'm not holding my breath.
quote: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. The situation with the filioque only highlighted this fundamental schism - in that it was added unilaterally by the Pope, which was considered legitimate by the Latins, while such unilateral dictat was anathema to the East.
Originally posted by IngoB:
But then some other rallying point would have to be found that would be trumped up with a vengeance until it maintains disunity apart from all reason...
quote:I don't think it's that different to what is going on today between the RC + Orthodox versus Protestantism/Liberalism. All the dead-horse issues (which we won't go into here) are really only symptoms of a much bigger problem which boils down to... Authority.
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. The situation with the filioque only highlighted this fundamental schism - in that it was added unilaterally by the Pope, which was considered legitimate by the Latins, while such unilateral dictat was anathema to the East.
From the Schism onwards the two halves tried to get together to discuss how to compromise on the filioque, but these councils were doomed to failure since the filioque was just a symptom of the authority issue. By rejecting the filioque the eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a heretical idea for the Latins. By changing the creed Rome was rejecting the authority of the ecumenical councils, which was anethama to the East. The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism.
quote:That's an interesting parallel. For me it doesn't quite work, because although in a sense the dead horses do boil down to authority (if x tells me to think y and I believe he/she/it has authority then I think y) on the other hand there are real practical issues concerning whether people a unfairly discriminated against and whether certain practices are sinful or not. I would not be itching to align myself with one authority or another were it not for this practical issues.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
All the dead-horse issues (which we won't go into here) are really only symptoms of a much bigger problem which boils down to... Authority.
quote:But if that revolving around concludes that we don't really know if it's true or not, is it not reasonable to start considering the feelings of our Orthodox bothers and sisters?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
quote:Okay then, it's a damn heresy.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
quote:But that is not a heretical idea for the CofE.
Originally posted by Hawk:
... By rejecting the filioque the eastern church rejected the authority of the Pope, which was a heretical idea for the Latins. ...
quote:That's a big if, but if that is case the primary concern ought to be the unity of Anglicanism.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But if that revolving around concludes that we don't really know if it's true or not, is it not reasonable to start considering the feelings of our Orthodox bothers and sisters?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
quote:These practical issues are a concern for both sides of the divide - it isn't a case that Protestants/Liberals care about people, while Catholics don't care about people (although having said that, I won't be at all surprised if some people on here do think just that) - it is just we have different ways of working these things out - do we fear God, or do we think human wisdom is better?
Originally posted by mdijon:
...on the other hand there are real practical issues concerning whether people are unfairly discriminated against and whether certain practices are sinful or not. I would not be itching to align myself with one authority or another were it not for this practical issues...
quote:Well, your comment in the first paragraph contradicts your assumption in the second. If the Anglican Church omitted the clause "in the interests of ecumenism", then it follows that they do not regard fellowship with the RCC as much of a priority!
Originally posted by Mark Betts
@EtymologicalEvangelical - I tried to make the point clear in the OP. Since the Anglican Church is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore uses all three of its creeds, why, during the enthronement of the new AB of C, did they use the non-RC version of the Nicene Creed?
There is no "veiled" criticism - I had genuine questions about why the Church of England seemed to go against its own beliefs in the interests of ecumenism.
quote:No, I don't think so, because other posters have suggested it was in the interests of ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, your comment in the first paragraph contradicts your assumption in the second. If the Anglican Church omitted the clause "in the interests of ecumenism", then it follows that they do not regard fellowship with the RCC as much of a priority!
quote:So the Anglican Church practises selective and self-destructive ecumenism, by alienating one section of the Church in order to win favour with another?
Originally posted by Mark Betts
No, I don't think so, because other posters have suggested it was in the interests of ecumenical relations with the Orthodox.
quote:Presumably the Anglican Church concentrates on trying to offend the RCC?
Anglicans - we don't feel it's important, we must concentrate on trying not to offend people
quote:I don't know EtymologicalEvangelical, I can only guess at what's going on - you're Anglican, so you tell me - that's what this thread is supposed to be all about.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So the Anglican Church practises selective and self-destructive ecumenism, by alienating one section of the Church in order to win favour with another?
< snip >
Presumably the Anglican Church concentrates on trying to offend the RCC?
quote:In which case we stand to gain even more blessings by practicing Christian charity towards them.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I appreciate the sentiment behind ecumenical gestures to the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, but these gestures tend to never be returned.
quote:Sure, I'm not disputing that here. I'm just saying that there are real practical issues driving some disputes and not others. And I'm suggesting that the fewer real practical issues there are driving the dispute, the more likely the dispute is to be a proxy for a fight to demonstrate which tradition/teaching is "in charge". The more real practical issues there are at stake, the more likely it is that the bone of contention really is a problem in its own right, rather than a proxy issue.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
These practical issues are a concern for both sides of the divide
quote:But it's not really against its own beliefs, is it? Just because you believe the version with filioque doesn't mean you don't believe the old version any more. Filioque isn't a change - it's a clarification. The Orthodox claim that as a clarification is isn't quite right. Well, OK. Nobody stopped believing the old version. The old version doesn't go "who proceeds from the Father, but the Son is in no way involved here and don't you go thinking otherwise."
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There is no "veiled" criticism - I had genuine questions about why the Church of England seemed to go against its own beliefs in the interests of ecumenism.
quote:Forgive it? Hell, we still have people who think it happened in their grandparents' lifetime.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
they haven't forgiven the West for the Fourth Crusade yet.
quote:Hear, hear.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I kinda think the debate around the filioque clause ought to revolve around whether or not it is true, not whether it hurts the feelings of the Orthodox.
quote:Quite so. There are those, including the new Pope and his predecessor, and the Ecumenmical Patriarch, who would like to make progress in addressing the issues, hard to do after a thousand years. For this reason, my personal view is that the Churches of the West should drop the filioque in a grand gesture of ecumenism towards Orthodoxy. Bostonman's link to Dominus Iesus (2000) and Archbishop Welby's enthronement both demonstrate that both the Catholic and Anglican Churches can live without the clause, wheras, for the reasons cited by Enoch, the Orthodox Churches can never accept it. I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the Trinity sufficiently to know if it should be in or out, but it is certainly a late addition, inserted without due ecumenical consideration.
Originally posted by Hawk:
The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism .
quote:Can it be that our not-knowing/not-caring about the significance of the filoque clause anymore is a kind of refutation of it, given the fact that the Trinity seems to remain a more central doctrine to the Orthodox? When I read Being as Communion by Zizioulas, I was impressed by the importance of the Trinity to his entire worldview. That means the Trinity minus the filioque, of course. What modern work do we have in the West that so lucidly and relevantly explains, and depends upon, Trinitarian doctrine and the fioloque understanding of it?
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. I think they should be able to do so, and I think we should care.
quote:If you're right that Western theology doesn't seem to be very interested in the Trinity, and doesn't regard the Trinity as fundamental to the rest of its theology, that doesn't reflect well on the pre-occupations, competence or likely relevance of Western theology.
Originally posted by Alogon:
... When I read Being as Communion by Zizioulas, I was impressed by the importance of the Trinity to his entire worldview. That means the Trinity minus the filioque, of course. What modern work do we have in the West that so lucidly and relevantly explains, and depends upon, Trinitarian doctrine and the fioloque understanding of it?
quote:Although my post sought to explain why dropping or not dropping the filioque isn't the important schism that needs addressing. You argue that the first step towards healing the schism is addressing the filioque, but I think this is a distraction from the larger disagreement over the source of doctrinal authority? IMO any effort towards the filioque issue is unhelpful since it utterly fails to get to the root of the divisions between us. It's papering over the cracks, and it'll just lead to misunderstanding and more division., as we've seen in Church history whenver the two sides have got together to discuss this, they've ended up further apart.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Quite so. There are those, including the new Pope and his predecessor, and the Ecumenmical Patriarch, who would like to make progress in addressing the issues, hard to do after a thousand years. For this reason, my personal view is that the Churches of the West should drop the filioque in a grand gesture of ecumenism towards Orthodoxy. Bostonman's link to Dominus Iesus (2000) and Archbishop Welby's enthronement both demonstrate that both the Catholic and Anglican Churches can live without the clause, wheras, for the reasons cited by Enoch, the Orthodox Churches can never accept it. I don't pretend to understand the inner workings of the Trinity sufficiently to know if it should be in or out, but it is certainly a late addition, inserted without due ecumenical consideration.
Originally posted by Hawk:
The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism .
quote:I take a different view entirely: the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son (and back again).
Originally posted by Gamaliel
One can argue, of course, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as far as the outpouring of the Spirit upon the Church goes - and that's how many people do see the filioque clause.
quote:They tried that, the result was massive division and schism. Personally I wish they hadn't bothered, and just got on with following Christ.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I just wish people could get around the table and thrash out whether they mean that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son - in his essence as it were - or from the Father.
quote:Other shipmates probably know more about this than I do, but I'm under the impression that that is more or less what the Council of Florence was saying.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess it depends on whether not saying the words, "and the Son" means that you don't believe that the Jesus has got anything to do with sending the Spirit upon his church. I think that Scripture does say that Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit upon his church. However, I also believe that the Holy Spirit was given to the risen and ascended Christ by the Father as the first blessing of his eternal inheritance.
So, I'd be happy to say that ultimately the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In this sense I don't think the the Filioque is essential to the creed. However, I also believe that the risen and ascended Jesus - by virtue of his having been given the Spirit by the Father - is the one who pours the Spirit out upon his people, the church. In this sense the church does receive the Holy Spirit from the Father via the Son. So I'm happy to say the Filioque if that is what is meant. However, if the Filioque is saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son - and always has proceeded from the Son -in his essence, I'd say not.
quote:I'm not sure about the first paragraph, though I think it's another way of expressing something that Augustine says. I'm under the impression that virtually everyone officially believes the other two. Can somebody who claims to know more about these things tell me if I'm right?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I take a different view entirely: the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son (and back again).
In other words, our relationship with God is not about the trinitarian God over there, coming to us over here, but about our being brought into that eternal relationship which defines the grace and love of God.
I am not sure how this fits into Church history, but that's the conclusion I've reached after applying my own version of sola scriptura!
quote:(This followed on from communion-wide Anglican-Orthodox dialogue, as expressed in the Moscow Agreed Statement of 1976 and the Dublin Agreed Statement of 1984. Robert Runcie had co-chaired the dialogue which produced the Moscow Statement.)
that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause.
quote:In theory maybe, but how can you ever be sure that everyone who will gather has the right will or attitude? How can you be sure some don't feel pushed into these discussions and still harbour grudges (maybe justifiably) concerning past events? I think that's what went wrong with the Council of Florence - so I think a lot of ground work has to be done first, before there is any point in having such discussions.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes! Getting round a table and discussing the things which divide us. It's the only way. It must be done, of course, in charity and, most importantly, prayer. That's true ecumenism. It's about getting down to the nitty gritty.
quote:Can you see a problem here (at least for the C of E)? How can you have a creed where some of the clauses are optional? What sort of creed is that?
Originally posted by Elephenor:
...For reasons I do not know the CofE adopted a rather narrower interpretation of the recommendation during the preparation of Common Worship, and printed the filioque-less text (p.140) only as an alternative which "may be used on suitable ecumenical occasions".
quote:We use both the Nicene creed and the Apostles' creed (usually the Apostles' creed in the context of baptism). Our faith does not change depending on whether there's a baptism happening on any particular day.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How can you have a creed where some of the clauses are optional? What sort of creed is that?
quote:There's a danger here of mistaking the creed for some kind of magic spell which has to be incanted correctly for it to "work". I don't think that's what creeds are for. The creed in question is a necessary but insufficient summary of apostolic doctrine, doctrine which is derived from the apostle's teaching preserved in Scripture. The clause isn't being made optional, it is being made omitable, which is slightly different. Also, the creeds are not to be considered infallible in any sense or indeed as authoritative as Scripture. What amazes me is that people are prepared to get worked up about the omission or inclusion of a clause in a creed which makes no claim to inspiration when they are prepared to edit whole swathes of holy scripture merely because it is inconvenient.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Can you see a problem here (at least for the C of E)? How can you have a creed where some of the clauses are optional? What sort of creed is that?
Originally posted by Elephenor:
...For reasons I do not know the CofE adopted a rather narrower interpretation of the recommendation during the preparation of Common Worship, and printed the filioque-less text (p.140) only as an alternative which "may be used on suitable ecumenical occasions".
quote:Well, now you ask, some would say that Protestant bibles have edited the so called Apocryphal books out, I think. But that wasn't where I was coming from. I was saying that there are entire sections of the bible that Christians happily don't believe are God-breathed and wouldn't read out in church.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
quote:Me neither.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's a danger here of mistaking the creed for some kind of magic spell which has to be incanted correctly for it to "work". I don't think that's what creeds are for.
quote:In what way is it insufficient? It all depends on what you believe it to be for - it is like a litmus test for right teaching, rather than a teaching aid in its own right.
The creed in question is a necessary but insufficient summary of apostolic doctrine, doctrine which is derived from the apostle's teaching preserved in Scripture.
quote:Well indeed. There are some bits where believing that would force me to conclude that God is neither good nor loving. But we've been there before, haven't we?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, now you ask, some would say that Protestant bibles have edited the so called Apocryphal books out, I think. But that wasn't where I was coming from. I saying that there are entire sections of the bible that Christians happily don't believe are God-breathed.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
quote:Insufficient in that it can't do for the church what the canon of scripture can do for the church: necessary, but insufficient. The creed can guard the church from error but it can't be used to establish doctrine.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Me neither.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's a danger here of mistaking the creed for some kind of magic spell which has to be incanted correctly for it to "work". I don't think that's what creeds are for.
quote:In what way is it insufficient? It all depends on what you believe it to be for - it is like a litmus test for right teaching, rather than a teaching aid in its own right.
The creed in question is a necessary but insufficient summary of apostolic doctrine, doctrine which is derived from the apostle's teaching preserved in Scripture.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Well indeed. There are some bits where believing that would force me to conclude that God is neither good nor loving. But we've been there before, haven't we?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well, now you ask, some would say that Protestant bibles have edited the so called Apocryphal books out, I think. But that wasn't where I was coming from. I saying that there are entire sections of the bible that Christians happily don't believe are God-breathed.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Insufficient in that it can't do for the church what the canon of scripture can do for the church...
quote:Again, it was never intended to establish doctrine, it is a summary of (Apostolic) doctrine, as you have said yourself.
The creed can guard the church from error but it can't be used to establish doctrine.
quote:...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.
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.
quote:Insufficient for doing anything which it wasn't intended to do, like maintaining a schism in the God's church, for example.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Insufficient in that it can't do for the church what the canon of scripture can do for the church...
It was never supposed to. So in what way is it insufficient? Of course it's insufficient to accomplish something it was never intended for in the first place.
quote:Good - I'm glad you said that. Read on, because we're getting to the bottom of the whole issue here...
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:...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.
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.
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.
quote:*Bzzzzzzt!* - Argument from Adverse Consequences. Also, I suspect the fallacy of the Excluded Middle is probably on its way any moment.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:...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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:This isn't "Just a Minute" you know, Karl. Are the "Excluded Middle" middle-of-the-roaders?
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.
quote:You're cleverer than that Mark.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:This isn't "Just a Minute" you know, Karl. Are the "Excluded Middle" middle-of-the-roaders?
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.
quote: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.
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.
Just sayin' ...![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: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".
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.
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.
quote:You mean you and everyone else make your own minds up how Holy Scripture is to be interpreted?
This, in fact, is the principle sola scriptura in action.
quote: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.
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.
quote:And on that topic the Anglicans, like the other mainstream Reformation churches, are closer to the Orthodox than the Catholics.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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".
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).
quote: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.
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?
code: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..........Father
............/\
.........../..\
..........v....v
Holy Spirit <- Son
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote: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.
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.
quote:(emphasis mine)
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.
quote:Article 8 of the 39 Articles says:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:...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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes, daronmedway - it makes a difference, the Bible coming out of Holy Tradition, as did the liturgy and creeds, yes?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm sorry. That final sentence should read, "There is no reason to etc."
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Yes, daronmedway - it makes a difference, the Bible coming out of Holy Tradition, as did the liturgy and creeds, yes?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm sorry. That final sentence should read, "There is no reason to etc."
quote:What other words have you redefined?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What other words have you redefined?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:Really? On what grounds?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
not sure if our RC friends were entirely comfortable then...!
quote: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!
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Tradition is just as much the work of the Holy Spirit as scripture and the Holy Spirit is not fallible.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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!
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote: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?
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.
To put it another way, what is Tradition and what is just tradition?
quote: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
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.
quote: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.
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
quote: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?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote: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?
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.
To put it another way, what is Tradition and what is just tradition?
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote: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.
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!
quote: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.
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.
quote:Well, yes, but as someone already said they already had most of the Scriptures hundreds of years before that.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes exactly.
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.
quote: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.
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
quote:Yes. Exactly this.
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.
quote: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.
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 ...'
quote:Hi,
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?