|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dropping Filioque Clause at JW's Enthronement
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
These practical issues are a concern for both sides of the divide
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Could I just intervene: you guys are not talking about an Anglican position, you are talking about a CofE position.
Some/Many branches of the Anglican communion already omit the filioque or make it optional, and have done for several decades.
That the CofE is belatedly working out that you don't have to state something for it to be true is rather touching in its way. But needs to remember -- and those commenting from other denominations need to remember as well -- what the CofE does is not normative or descriptive of what is "Anglican", unless time vanishes and what the rest of us did 30 years ago and what the CofE will get around to in 30 years are deemed to be contemporary.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
they haven't forgiven the West for the Fourth Crusade yet.
Forgive it? Hell, we still have people who think it happened in their grandparents' lifetime.
quote:
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.
Hear, hear.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism .
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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. I think they should be able to do so, and I think we should care.
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?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Purely in the interest of historical accuracy, may I set the record straight? The filioque was introduced in Spain as a corrective to Arianism, but its insertion in the Nicene Creed was, in fact, resisted in Rome until pressure from Charlemagne, who wanted to establish himself as having the same authority over the Church as the Byzantine Emperors, induced the Pope to withdraw his opposition.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The two sides never really addressed this fundamental schism .
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.
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.
Nowadays it's even more complicated, since the western churches are larger broken from Papal authority, and recognise only scriptural authority. This adds another factor into the age-old question. The idea that if the west drops the filoque then we'll draw closer together entirely misunderstands what seperates us.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, yes Daronmedway ... that's what this whole issue is about. 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.
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.
Others must view it differently, I must only imagine, otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy.
If the RCs and others understand it refer to the sending forth of the Holy Spirit by Christ, as it were, then why don't they just come out and say so?
It's not simply the unilateral nature of this late addition to the Creeds that the Orthodox object to - although I fully accept Hawk's historical points - but the implication that there's some kind of subordination involved.
The that Holy Spirit is somehow 'less' God than the Father and the Son.
Now, I don't know any conservatively inclined RCs or Protestants who believe that ... we all believe that the Persons of the Godhead are One in Essence and Undivided.
So why not say so and sort this one out once and for all?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be cheeky, Hawk and amend your comment to read that the Western churches have largely abandoned Papal authority and replaced with their own view of scriptural authority ... rather than scriptural authority per se.
I would argue that whatever we regard as 'scriptural authority' is refracted through the lenses of whatever tradition we happen to belong to or espouse ... so there're varying scriptural authorities depending on what tradition/denominational spectacles we happen to be wearing ...
There's a Reformed 'take', a Lutheran 'take', various Anglican 'takes', Wesleyan 'takes', Pentecostal 'takes', conservative evangelical 'takes' ...
It's like Spec-savers. Lots of lenses to choose from.
We might all be reading the eye-test chart slightly differently.
Some of us will be wearing bifocals.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
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.
They tried that, the result was massive division and schism. Personally I wish they hadn't bothered, and just got on with following Christ.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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!
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?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I can't say for sure, but it strikes me that 'the other two' statements are congruent with orthodox/Orthodox understandings ...
It might even be congruent with 'sola scriptura' too - but then I'm awkward and don't believe that most people who claim to operate by 'sola scriptura' do anything of the kind. We all approach scripture through the lens of one tradition or other.
Even claiming to be 'sola scriptura' is itself a tradition ...
Thinking about it, these last two statements are probably compatible with all manner of understandings of these things. I've heard quite liberal people talk about being caught up in the 'cosmic dance of the Trinity' and so on.
And you could also say that it has echoes of the Orthodox theosis thing ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Hawk - yes, I can see what you're saying, but what I'm suggesting is that if by getting around a table in the first place triggered these divisions then the way to heal them is to reverse the process and revisit the divisions and thrash them out ... round a table.
I don't see any other way of doing it.
'Just getting on and following Christ,' sounds awfully pious but sometimes that may involve getting around a table with people we don't necessarily agree with and trying to thrash things out.
It's a lot easier to plough our own pietistic furrows than to thrash things out in a robust way. And I appreciate that it's a lot easier said than done ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It won't help though if the thing we try to thrash out around a table is a proxy for the real problem.
If the filioque clause is a symptom of a dispute regarding authority rather than an actual reason for division it won't help to focus on it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
As a few previous posters have indicated, omitting the filioque is long-established Anglican policy at a Communion level. Lambeth Conference 1988 resolution 6 recommended quote:
that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause.
(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.)
A number of provinces have followed this recommendation (off-hand I believe these include Scotland and the USA?). 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".
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"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 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".
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?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How can you have a creed where some of the clauses are optional? What sort of creed is that?
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.
ETA: "We" in this context are a TEC parish.
[ 04. April 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
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".
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?
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.
[ 05. April 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
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.
[ 05. April 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Me neither.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
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.
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
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.
Me neither.
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Really? Where do I get the edited convenient version from? Is it available in bookshops yet?
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.
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?
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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:
The creed can guard the church from error but it can't be used to establish doctrine.
Again, it was never intended to establish doctrine, it is a summary of (Apostolic) doctrine, as you have said yourself.
--------------------
"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 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.
--------------------
"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:
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.
Insufficient for doing anything which it wasn't intended to do, like maintaining a schism in the God's church, for example.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
