Drop the Filioque?
Drop the Filioque?
A group of Eastern Orthodox Christians are getting excited for the launch of a new project called, “Drop The Filioque.” One can presume it will intend to encourage the Western world to ditch the ancient creed’s inclusion of the “Filioque.” The new site is http://www.dropthefilioque.org.
The single Latin word means “and the son,” and is cited by many as one of the events leading up to the East-West Schism. Leading the charge, or at least purchasing the domain, is Gabriel Martini, an Eastern Orthodox blogger and marketing product manager for Logos Bible software. I first got wind of the project through Jamey Bennet, who put the project on twitter looking for allies in the Western tradition.
Do you know any prominent clergy of Roman Catholic or Protestant vintage who support the removal of the Filioque? If so, hit me up, homeboy.
— jamey w. bennett (@jameybennett) August 21, 2013
Why the Fuss?
The Western Church has held to the Filioque since its inclusion to the latin text of the Nicene Creed in the 6th Century. Maintaining that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and from the Son as the standard view of the Trinitarian relationship. What theological implications does removing the Filioque have for our Trinitarian theology? In summarizing Abraham Kuyper’s thoughts, Edwin Palmer points to many.
“Abraham Kuyper has incisively pointed out, a denial of the filioque leads to an unhealthy mysticism. It tends to isolate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives from the work of Jesus. Redemption by Christ is put in the background, while the sanctifying work of the Spirit is brought to the fore. The emphasis is more and more on the work of the Spirit in our lives, which tends to lead to an independence from Christ, the church, and the Bible. Sanctification can loom larger than justification, the subjective communion with the Spirit larger than the objective church life, and illumination by the Spirit larger than the Word. Kuyper believes that this has actually been the case to some extent in the Eastern church, as a result of the denial that the Spirit proceeds form the Son as well as from the Father.” (Thanks for this Greg Uttinger)
St. Augustine’s reasoning is more than adequate,”Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” – Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416].
It is important to remember that there is only one way to approach God – through the Son. Come to the Son, have him breathe the breath of the Spirit, so that you may be held in the arms of the Father. The difference between West and East remains an idea of “incarnational” living. The East prides itself in the traditions of monasticism and mysticism as attempts to escape the flesh, while the West models itself after the God made Man. The God-man who came into our reality to set the perfect example of righteous obedience. The Filioque centers our theology around the Spirit’s true purpose in filling the earth with the Kingdom of the Son. For dominion, not escapism.
The Orthodox “Drop the Filioque” website is set to launch in just over a week, perhaps we need to remind them why this creedal affirmation is so important.
<>
I would call, “sources” on this. The Filioque was accepted into Western churches until the time of the Great Schism of Rome away from the greater Church. Its inclusion does not lead to an “unhealthy mysticism,” even in the face of a growing Realism and Liberalism, but honestly teaches the rôle and Personhood of each distinct Member of the Holy Trinity. Acceptance of the Filioque teaches us that the Truth of the Gospel is subject to both interpretation and revision as the whim arises, and that the truth of Scripture does not hold a candle to the power of ecclesial politics.
For readers who are interested in more of what Kuyper might say concerning the Orthodox, Russia, the Filioque and the relationships each play with one another, I would suggest the following article:
“Abraham Kuyper on Russia and the “Filioque” Clause” by Peter Y. De Jong, published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology (4/1, 1988 pp. 54-82).
Suffice it to say, Steve’s initial post does have support in terms of what Kuyper thought about the Filioque, the Orthodox, and the mystical nature of Eastern Christianity whether one agrees with what Kuyper thought or not. And, while current proponents of Orthodoxy would doubt Kuyper’s thesis there is enough there for more balanced inquirers to question how the absence of the Filioque has made a difference both in terms of the nature of the Eastern faith and how it worked itself out in Russian and other eastern societies over the last thousand years. Such questions, of course, are usually not handled so well by Orthodox proponents but they are necessary inquiries that should be made from the standpoint of Western considerations of the Filioque.
So, bravo, for Steve’s efforts here!
Kevin,
To be sure De Young’s article reflects claims about what Kuyper thought. If the blog author along with yourself, were just giving intellectual biographical data the article would lend support to that. But the article offers nothing more than a survey of Kuyper’s thoughts about Russia and his grand theorizing which was indicative of the Hegelianism and organicism of the time, which the article notes (p.74) . The Filioque is just indicative of the Russian religious “soul” as if religio-cultural outlook were some kind of biological fact about Russians. In this way the article proffers a brief survey of Russian religious history combined with a defunct historiography with Kuyper as its mouthpiece.
There simply is no substantial interaction at all with the theology of the Filioque or the Orthodox Triadology, let alone biblical exegesis. None. Nada. Zippo. Nor is there any demonstration actually showing how the rejection of the Filioque led to some kind of irrational organic mysticism. (It is quite ironic that on the one hand the Orthodox peoples are as ignorant, untaught in things biblical and such, and yet on the other hand the supreme importance of worship and major theological points are on the tips of the tongues of even the peasants.) So I really have to wonder what it is that you wave your hands at when you speak of there being enough there to see how the Filioque supposedly had this kind of distorting effect. All that seems to be demonstrated is how the dominant Idealism of the time had a distorting effect on Kuyper’s historiography.
On top of this the article, and Kuyper along with it suffer from some of the usual factual inaccuracies. Take for example the claim that Rome offered a compromise formula “through the Son” which was rejected with “stubborn resistance.” (p. 67-68) This was actually no compromise at all, because what Rome actually offered was that the term “through” was to be understood completely in terms of “from” and not the other way around. The relation was to be semantically asymmetrical. Rome was simply offering the dogma of hypostatic origination in its usual form. There was no concession.
Of course, such questions are usually not handled so well by Calvinist apologists. They usually just end up parroting Rome’s apologists.
Perry,
All we needed was your first sentence making it clear that what’s been presented here is Kuyper’s viewpoint. Thanks for confirming what we’ve already indicated. All the rest we already expect you to disagree with in large part. The article was never meant to display a defense of the Filioque but only further represented Kuyper’s view.
“Attempts to escape the flesh” is hardly a correct description of Orthodox asceticism. It is precisely a struggle for the whole man (body and soul), not a gnosticizing anti-materialism.
Denial of the Filioque is simply adhering to the Creed as it was ecumenically agreed upon (including by Rome). Are the Fathers of Constantinople I somehow engaged in an “unhealthy mysticism” that “isolates” the work of the Holy Spirit apart from the Son? Or is this a problem with Jesus Himself, who testified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father?
The problem with the Filioque (aside from its sectarian character) is precisely that it confuses the Persons of the Trinity. Rather than emphasizing their closeness (which is well-emphasized already in the theology of, e.g., St. Basil), it distorts their unique character and destroys the perfect balance testified by the Fathers and the Lord Himself by a failure to make any true distinctions between Person and Nature.
No it is not. It is a claim the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. That word alone doesn’t appear in scripture. Worse Rev 22:1 teaches the Filioque. As do the Fathers including Epiphanius of Salamas who first wrote the creed in the Well Anchored Man. The elucidation he provides in the next appendix clearly shows Filioque principles as does the main text.
Now onto the main protagonist of this Photius the self excommunicated for being ordained by another excommunicate. Pope John VIII instructed his legates that Photius was to apologize to be restored, since he never did that, the 879 council was nothing more than a meeting led by an excommunicate, not a church council. Photius desired to be patriarch so bad he made up his theory to antagonize Rome.
Some corrections.
The western church did not have the Filioque in its Creed from the sixth century. The inclusion at the synod of Toledo didn’t universalize its use. It only made it prevalent as an anti-Arian text among the Spanish and then among the Franks. Rome opposed its usage for three centuries. It was finally precluded in the synod of union in 879. It wasn’t accepted by Rome until 1014 as a basis for papal supremacy. (Since the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and the Pope is the vicar of the Son, then the Spirit proceeds into the church through the Pope alone.)
Kuyper’s reasoning is misinformed. Here is why. He is assuming, along with Thomists and Rome generally, that if there is no relation of hypostatic origination, then there is no relation except the economical. He has no other category for an eternal relation that is not that of hypostatic origination. Consequently, his theology is not sufficiently fine grained to launch a criticism because he is arguing against a straw man.
The Orthodox think there is an eternal relation between the Son and the Spirit, but it isn’t that of hypostatic origination. Rather it is that of an energetic procession or an eternal shining forth or manifestation evidencing the consubstantiality of the persons.
As far as dividing the Spirit from the Son, I would think that would be a problem inherent in Reformed Christology, with its view via say John Owen and others that the divine person of the Son never acts on or thru his humanity except to assume it. All other work of Christ is done by “the man” Jesus so that Christ acts as a divinely empowered man via the Spirit. (See Alan Spence’ work on Owen’s Christology.)
Protestants can only use Augustine here if they reject Sola Scriptura. And this is because Augustine’s reasoning depends on a metaphysic within the project of natural theology. Without it, the doctrine of the Filioque cannot be derived from scripture alone as Protestant exegetes admit.
The East does not attempt to escape the flesh. The Orthodox have maintained the deification of the flesh, of matter itself, against all comers. It is the west that has played down the significance in the flesh by its doctrine of the beatific vision where the body is excluded from the intentional union with deity. There is simply no way one can go through any Orthodox service and come away with the idea that we aim to escape from the flesh. On the other hand, Protestant services, particularly in the classically Reformed tradition, make matter ancillary or exclude it practically altogether from worship and minimize bodily participation. It is not for no reason that Protestants have written works critical of their own tradition, such as Lee’s Against the Protestant Gnostics. Here the shoe is on the other foot. Orthodox liturgics is filled with not only rich references and expositions of the incarnation, but the incarnation is a constant year round emphasis. We sing hymns about the incarnation and the Trinity every.single.week.
Of course you are free to launch whatever website you like, but if this post is indicative, you are going to make it very easy for Orthodox like myself to pick off converts.
Call me crazy but I think Augustine’s Trinitarian theology is misunderstood and that he denies the Hypostatic source of the Trinity. He even says how people will misuse him for heresy. Further, Augustine has said how he does not have the translation of the Greeks to check and see plus he says if what he writes contradicts their tradition to not hold to what he says. He even says how no one should clinge to him and his objectors not clinge to theirselves. The quote of Augustine used in this article is not in support for eternal procession. Augustine believed, like the Greeks, that the Son can send the Spirit only because He send it from the Father. On top of this, there were those in the Reformed tradition that didn’t believe in the filioque too.
My comment was purely satirical by the way. Good article
“Abraham Kuyper has incisively pointed out, a denial of the filioque leads to an unhealthy mysticism. It tends to isolate the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives from the work of Jesus. Redemption by Christ is put in the background, while the sanctifying work of the Spirit is brought to the fore. The emphasis is more and more on the work of the Spirit in our lives, which tends to lead to an independence from Christ, the church, and the Bible. Sanctification can loom larger than justification, the subjective communion with the Spirit larger than the objective church life, and illumination by the Spirit larger than the Word. Kuyper believes that this has actually been the case to some extent in the Eastern church, as a result of the denial that the Spirit proceeds form the Son as well as from the Father.”
What exactly is being claimed here? On its face, it sounds absurd — frankly, laughable. I am sorry to sound so dismissive, but I am trying my best to genuinely express the (high) degree of my incredulity about this. Suffice it to say that there appears to be no necessary connection whatsoever between denying that the Spirit receives his hypostatic origin from the Father and the Son (as opposed to from the Father alone) and any of the following: (i) unhealthy mysticism, (ii) a tendency to isolate the work of the Holy Spirit from the work of Jesus (huh?), (iii) putting redemption by Christ into the background (really?!), and (iv) a tendency toward independence from Christ, the church, and the Bible (!!!!!), etc. It seems plainly obvious that one can wholeheartedly embrace redemption by Christ, a strong connection between the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of Jesus, an all-encompassing dependence on Christ, the Church, and the Bible (etc.), and a proper sort of mysticism, all while believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds (in hypostatic origin) from the Father alone and not from both the Father and the Son. The comments preceding mine are relevant in this regard.
So… Maybe, instead, the claim is not that there is a necessary connection, but that the unhappy consequences just mentioned *sometimes* result when someone denies the filioque. But first, if this is supposed to be a widespread phenomenon, then I remain pretty much just as skeptical about it as I am about the claim that there is some *necessary* connection between a denial of the filioque and the bad consequences. And second, while I am willing to grant that, perhaps in a few cases, one or more of the bad consequences mentioned sometimes (somehow) results from a denial of the filioque — e.g., through a chain of very bad reasoning — I don’t see how that could amount to a defense of the filioque doctrine itself. For many claims (even when those claims are quite true), it is the case that *sometimes* people who embrace them end up with bad consequences that occur via a chain of very bad reasoning from them. Some people end up endorsing extreme antinomianism via bad reasoning from the claim that justification is by faith alone. I don’t suppose that that would be a good reason for denying justification by faith alone, though — e.g., by saying that we must not accept it because it sometimes ends up leading people into extreme antinomianism. Similarly, I don’t suppose that the fact that sometimes people go in the wrong direction as a result of denying the filioque in any way speaks to the truth of the filioque itself.
As for the claims about the history of the filioque and about Augustine, Perry Robinson does a good job of addressing them. I’ll just add that Augustine wrote in Latin and knew little Greek, and this could be significant with respect to his argument. In Latin, there is generally one word (“procedit” and its cognates) that is used to speak of “procession.” In Greek, there are generally two (“ekporeusis” and “proienai,” or something close to those — I’m working from memory alone here), and they have distinct meanings. Any Orthodox theologian could (with apparent justice) employ this distinction and say that Augustine’s argument conflates two different ideas of procession when they should be kept distinct.
Steve: Thanks for initiating this important conversation. As a committed Augustinian-Calvinist-Kuyperian who has also spent 25 years exploring the attraction of some traditionally-Reformed-types to EO, I find this discussion of supreme relevance. I’d love to help in any way I can.
By the way, your Anglican-HVIII analogy is excellent.
Dr. Grant, minor correction: Steve did not really initiate this conversation. DropTheFilioque.org did. 😉 But we’re happy to have such excellent conversation partners as yourself. Always a delight to interact with you.
Brothers,
Pardon the comparison, but at times it seems like discussing the Filioque with EO Christians is like a conversation about the Anglican Church under Henry VIII. How the Filioque came to be included is almost more of an outrage than the actual textual variation.
Although, I can’t fault the Orthodox for that, I would much rather have the reputation of papal disobedience over creedal authority rather than an adulterous King’s sexual whims. But like the Anglicans, the Western Church can clearly follow its traditions back before the Papal controversies, including the Filioque.
I’m sure the “drop folks” are looking toward Church unity – but is the Filioque really what’s keeping us apart? Especially considering that some of the Eastern uniates in RCC do not say the “filioque” clause in the Creed, and the RCC does not oblige them to do so.
If the real issue is the Papal authority – I think we can keep our “Filioque,” you keep your monastics, and hammer on the Pope instead.
Steve,
I don’t find the comparison to be apt. Here is why. Because it ignores what the theological position entails. Only then can the reaction seem inflated.
To say that the western church follows its traditions is begging the question. For Augustine, it isn’t a tradition, it is a rather platonic speculation, which he refused to carry through to its conclusion, namely Spirituque-that the Father and the Spirit generate the person of the Son. It only gains acceptance among the Franks and by Frankish imperial power, largely as a political tool against the Romans in Constantinople.
As far as the non-inclusion of the phrase, this is irrelevant. Here is why. First the theology is objectionable all by itself. Rome obliges uniates to adhere to the theology whether they say the clause or not. Second, Rome’s lack of imposition of the clause is true for some uniates, not all. Some are required to say it. And Rome can and has imposed it when it sees fit, as Allatae Sunt, sec.30ff makes clear. Rome can impose it in the creed any time she likes and she has done so.
As far as the “real issue” goes your remarks would be true if ecclesiology floated free of Triadology, but it doesn’t. And this is why the Popes argue for both the Filioque and papal supremacy conjointly and as mutually supporting. The papacy turns on certain assumptions and views, both philosophical and theological relative to the doctrine of God. As Aquinas recognized, you can’t have one without the other. (Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Bk 2, 32) They go together like a horse and carriage.
Of course, noting the Platonic (or Neoplatonic) influence in Augustine is terribly overrated these days and turns on a Hegelian idealism in approaching history that can’t be justified. Doubtless, scholars have been attributing Augustine’s understanding of several things to Platonic sources for more than a century but recently the tide is beginning to turn as historiographical approaches to the extant material move in other more sensible directions.
Because of this, you are certainly welcome to claim that Augustine’s view of the Filioque proceeds on Platonic terms, but this is not something which can be simply assumed as a matter of historical fact. Rather, you must demonstrate it for anyone today to take your suggestion seriously.
And, this is part and parcel of the problem between East and West. So much of this discussion revolves around interpretations of history, texts, and doctrine that are complicated and often opposite or very nearly so. Because of this, to claim your view of these things ought to be the West’s view simply because you or others say so is just more special pleading on your part. None of the historical narrative that you present or the way you frame the question(s) is by necessity the way others ought to look at the matter. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but many of our fathers in the Reformed faith and otherwise held to the Filioque for valid reasons long before you and your friends came on the scene. The notion that you’ve found the Really True Gospel in the Orthodox Church does not make it so for everyone and nothing of what you’ve presented already is convincing in the least to those who have steeped long enough in the Reformed faith.
Kevin,
Whatever over rating you wish to gesture at with respect to late Platonism’s influence on Augustine, this doesn’t actually demonstrate the truth of that claim or even touch what was claimed relative to his Triadology. While there has been some pealing back with respect to Platonism and Augustine’s epistemology, such generally has not been the case with respect to his views on the Trinity, let alone Christology. (See Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, Carey’s Inner Grace: Augustine in the Traditions of Plato and Paul, Harrison’s, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology: An Argument for Continuity, and Keech’s The Anti-Pelagian Christology of Augustine of Hippo.) Augustine’s Platonism is to be sure not that of Plotinus, but it is surely very close to that of Origen’s, who exercised a significantly large and lasting influence on Augustine’s theology. Consequently, I really can’t take your remarks as anything more than dismissive and appeals to authorities not even disclosed.
The scholarship on this question in the last quarter century had been marked by a dogged attention to texts than anything Hegelian. You must be thinking of material from the late 19th to early twentieth centuries. My take is in no way indebted to those earlier works and neither is the work of the specialists I noted above. Throwing mud isn’t an argument in any case.
And mischaracterizing my remarks as an assumption of Platonic influence. I made no such assumption. Next you’ll be telling me that I am assuming Aristotelian influence in Augustine’s use of the concept of relation in his Trinitarian theology! All one has to do is read On the Trinity to see what I said before, namely that Augustine views the Filioque as speculation and that Spirituqiue, a yet further speculation is to be prohibited, and that entire discussion turns on the Platonic genera of same and different. There must be sameness between the first two to distinguish the third balancing out identity and difference, lest the third be another second. All of that is in reaction to the Arian objection along the same lines.
And the Frankish use up to and including Charlemagne of both moderate iconoclasm and the Filioque as a political tool just isn’t controversial. Siecienski’s recent work is sufficient to make this plain along with Dvornik’s classic on Photius and much of the literature in between. So far as I can see, there is no real interaction with the arguments I made above, but rather more dismissals. This is exemplified in your further mischaracterizations.
As usual, all you do is disagree with me and provide nothing substantial in response except general agreement that Hegelian idealism sponsored much of the original look at these issues in terms of Platonic/Neoplatonic influence of Augustine and other early Christian figures. At least you have that part of the narrative right. I have no need to value your name-dropping as if that proves anything. We could probably find a set of scholars willing to debate the influence of Darth Vader in Augustine if we tried. That some scholars may agree with you doesn’t establish the truth of your own contentions any more than it might with my own view. I’m not making an appeal to authority here, I’m merely noting the state of the current and past debates on these issues–the sea change that remains in progress in terms of evaluating historical texts–something you have now admitted though grudgingly. Thank you, then, for your support because what it really means is that you can’t so starkly defend your position while considering all others on the matter false without a great deal of qualification. Granted, the Eastern view is what it is but it is not the only rational take on these issues.
Kevin,
Take for example that the West’s position (as if we know what constitutes the “west” here) ought to be as I say so, because I say so and this is special pleading. I never made such an argument. Either you have a significant reading comprehension problem or you aren’t reading what is being posted because you simply aren’t engaging it to be sure. To say that the debate revolves around interpretations of history, texts and doctrine that are complicated is akin to noting that people breathe oxygen. I am so glad to hear that the Reformation debates didn’t revolve around the interpretations of history, texts and doctrine that was complicated. They just read the Bible plain and simple!
You assert that the way I frame the issues or the historical narrative is by necessity the way others ought to think of the matter. Well, this is a nice assertion on your part that allows you to ignore the facts and arguments I brought forward to discuss and dismiss them. Secondly, it is rather childish. Who thinks that historical theology for example by anyone’s standard admits of many, let alone any necessary demonstrations or readings? You raise the bar too high and then dismiss replies out of hand. There really is no counter argument here on offer, unless we count condescension to have inferential value.
If condescension had inferential value, you’d be able to demonstrate the meaning of good and necessary consequence! Please. Don’t bother to call my response childish and then chide me for condescension.
I’m glad you’re willing to admit that historical theology is a complex subject that cannot be reduced to mere positions. If only your rhetoric toward the Filioque actually matched the assertions I have to draw out of you through provocative means, we might be able to come to some agreement.
Kevin,
Much the same is exemplified in your remark,
“You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but many of our fathers in the Reformed faith and otherwise held to the Filioque for valid reasons long before you and your friends came on the scene”
This assumes you’ve established that my views as articulated above are an opinion. Second it seems laughable for a Calvinist to lay down the trump card of historical antiquity. Our fathers which you like to claim for yourself, rejected the Filioque before your little band of lawyers and schismatic priests came along. Two can play at condescension, but of course given your “fathers” recent arrival compared to say the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, Photius and Mark of Ephesus your trump card lacks the antiquity to make the condescension stick. The Orthodox held to the original Creed and its theology long before the Reformers were sucking the sour milk of the Filioque from the teat of Frankish Rome. How ironic that you invoke your “fathers” to defend something which exemplifies to the utmost degree the scholasticism which they so vehemently opposed.
More to the point your ‘fathers” on your own principles are fallible men like any other. It matters not what conclusions they came to relative to the Orthodox, let alone scripture. It only matters if their claims are true. And none of your condescending dismissals have offered readers a reason for thinking so, other than your saying that they held to it for “valid reasons.” What are those “valid reasons?” You simply keep these secret for some reason.
As I have already indicated, turnabout is fair play. Simply because you think you’ve found the Really True Gospel in the Reformed sects does not make it so for everyone else and nothing of what you’ve presented already is convincing in the least to those who have steeped long enough in the Orthodox Faith. Of course, you mischaracterize the means to find the truth in those comments. Convincing power is irrelevant to the truth of an argument. Reporting your biographical and psychological dispositions in terms of convincing power may help you get through the day, but they aren’t an actual reason to think your claims are true.
Now there are of course contemporary Reformed writers who have published defending the Filioque, particularly in the last few years, by and large repeating the arguments of Rome. But at least they are presenting arguments rather than lobbing snobbery grenades. I’d suggest you take a lesson from them.
Perry,
Anyone really familiar with the Reformed tradition knows that the Reformed laid claim to fidelity with the early Fathers of the church. I don’t know why you’d be so surprised to hear me invoke a reference either to the Reformers or those who came before them given that I’ve defended the same over the years. The Eastern Fathers are not the only ones to comment and support can be found for both East and West among the Fathers on these issues so we shouldn’t pretend that you’re the one with the spiritual lineage and we’re just latecomers. I was just pointing out that many good spiritual men in the Reformed tradition have handled these issues long before 21st century American Orthodox proponents felt so radically justified by their newly found opinions. That shouldn’t be controversial in the slightest.
I haven’t found the “Really True Gospel in the Reformed sects” but in fact encountered Christ quite outside that environment many years prior. Going to or being a member of a Reformed church does not carry with it the same ecclesiological implications of Eastern Orthodoxy and you should take care to avoid describing such a situation in terms that are not true to its nature.
Once again you accuse me of snobbery and then lob your own grenades. I’d rather you just make your case about striking the Filioque which you have yet to do. How many times do I have to ask?
A good resource regarding the filioque is “The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy” (OUP, 2010) by A. Edward Siecienski in the Oxford Studies in Historical Theology series.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Filioque-Doctrinal-Controversy-Historical/dp/0195372042
While the author is Orthodox (converting from the Catholic church through the process of researching this book, if I am not mistaken), a well-known Catholic blogger reviewed this work saying:
“The book is an excellent historical overview of the controversy; the notes and bibliography form a good point of departure for further research. Hardliners on both sides will not be the only ones disappointed, however. Many Orthodox will dislike it because it does not reject the doctrine outright. Many Catholics will dislike it because its only real ecumenical proposal is that Rome drop the filioque clause from the Creed recited in the Roman Rite on Sundays.”
Steve:
I personally don’t have enough knowledge to judge regarding the truth of the filioque. But I do have enough knowledge to judge that it’s a controversial theologoumenon, not Creedal. There are good reasons for and against it. Which is precisely why it shouldn’t be in the Creed.
What I do know, however, is that this article does a worse job describing the Orthodox than the New York Times does describing Pope Francis. You’d do well to read Maximos and Palamas, and only then comment. Particularly, the statement:
The saving work of Christ is absolutely central for both Sts. Maximos and Palamas. Indeed, one of Palamas’ concerns is that Barlaam does not rightly value the body, and St. Maximos very explicitly centers everything on Christ, and His ordering His life toward the Resurrection.
If you can give a decent summary of Maximos or Palamas (or of the arguments against the filioque), I’ll take your arguments seriously. But this piece is only good as satire of Reformed polemics.
[…] “A group of Eastern Orthodox Christians are getting excited for the launch of a new project called, Drop The Filioque. One can presume it will intend to encourage the Western world to ditch the ancient creed’s inclusion of the Filioque.” Read my thoughts over at the Kuyperian Commentary here. […]
This is a very interesting topic to me. From what I understand, the Orthodox take issue with the filioque for two primary reasons. 1) It was added without an ecumenical council, breaking away from the tradition of the Church and thus signifying one of Rome’s first moves in making herself the supreme authority. 2) The filioque confuses the economical trinity (their roles in history) and the ontological trinity (their relation to each other from all eternity). The Orthodox do not deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son economically; the question is if he proceeds from the Father and the Son ontologically.
As a Protestant and fellow Kuyperian contributor, I’m not calling for a change in the creed, nor am I saying I necessarily agree with the Orthodox on this point. I do, however, think the Western church, and especially the Protestant church has not dealt with the Orthodox argument very well – if they’ve dealt with it at all. The clause regarding the begetting of the Son deals with ontology, to show that Christ is one nature with God. To show that the Spirit is God, it would make sense to speak of his ontology as well. Jumping to his economic relationship instead seems inconsistent.
Adam,
Thank you for your level-headed response. This is the kind of thing that will further dialogue, and might lead to some constructive agreement.
I am taken aback a bit at how quick this post came together for something that hasn’t even really been announced. But I guess we’ll all just have to wait until the site launch…
All the best,
Jamey
Adam,
If I could suggest refining your disjunction between ontology and economy. The difference is that for the procession to be eternal for Rome and Protestants it has to be that of hypostatic origination. This is because there is no other category on their ontology. It is either going to be Substantial or Accidental and it can’t be the former, so it must be the latter.
For the Orthodox, their metaphysic is more fine grained and they do have another category, namely that of energy, that is eternal but isn’t that of hypostatic origination. Hence the Orthodox admit of an eternal energetic procession that is not hypostatic origination nor is it economical.
Yes, “Energy” – this is exactly what Kuyper is pointing to in this Byzantine mysticism. We don’t have an energetic relationship to God – but a personal relationship through the Son.
We can know God not because of some energy dimension to his being, but rather through the incarnation of the son.
The self-contained ontological Trinity is defined by its own sufficiently inter-trinitarian relationship.
Positing energy here is to define the Creator by the creation.
God IS knowable, we know him through His Word. Not some metaphysical energy that reduces Christianity to an epistemological absurdity.
This energy distinction is also what gives any ‘weight’ to the doctrine of theosis – again a mystic introduction to the “energy” of God.
In spite of cries otherwise this is well-stated, Steve, from a Reformed perspective.
Errata,
I wrote: “It is either going to be Substantial or Accidental and it can’t be the former, so it must be the latter.”
this should read: “It is either going to be Substantial or Accidental and it can’t be the latter, so it must be the former.”
As opposed to Vermigli, who says that the Word was not incarnate. Give me a break. The doctrine of the Energies allows the Orthodox to say make much stronger claims about the Incarnation and our personal relationship with the Trinity than the Reformed make, without any of the corresponding problems the Lutherans have.
People who pass over the evidence, and blithely ignore arguments they are not prepared to answer, but rather assert their own opinion as if, having the ‘right’ to speak their mind immediately makes their mind right on the topic. This is not Christian thinking, any more than abortion is a form of infant baptism, but is a default to the basic, secular, nihilistic, denial of the necessary existence of truth, not realising that all truth that is truth is true because of its agreement with Him who is Truth.
Of course, it’s no accident that Reformed converts to Orthodoxy might want to drop the Filioque, but it seems strange that paedocommunion advocates would have a problem with it given their revised confessional orthodoxy on the question of young children and infants taking communion. I, for one, have a problem with both revisionist approaches and I imagine Kuyper would have as well.
Adam, you seem to feel that, 1. taking away the Filioque would “change” it. Does your head change when you take off a hat? In just such a way, a “hat” was put on the Creed in the name of Papal Primacy, which I doubt a “Kuperian theologian” would support.
Also, 2. that the Eternal Progression is a figurative statement of hypostatic ontology. Ontology is about being, and progression is about a process. Where does the doctrine come from, then? This may surprise you, but it comes, ultimately, from the Bible – the Bible which the Western churches, after the private interpretation/opinion of St. Jerome, abandoned for the accepted, and “theologically acceptable” Jewish sources in the Masoretic Hebrew. The OT which the Fathers, the Apostles, and Christ quoted says, in Ps. 109:4, that the Son, “..eternally proceeds from the womb of the Father.” Not a figure of speech, but a statement of eternal truth.
So, where does this “and the Son” business come from? It seems to have been useful in the 4th century as a means of explaining the Creed to non-Greeks, though it beggars the imagination how that might be. Jesus was careful not to allow for that misconception when we read, “I will pray the Father, that He will send…” so even in the time-bounded, “economic” view, there is no support for the Filioque. We can only conclude, then, that the whole purpose of the accretion is political – to create an opinion around which, lke heresies, generally, people can argue and grandstand to the eternal expense of the Body, and the Mission, of Christ.
Patrick, I’m having a hard time deciphering your tone. To clarify, my original comment above was meant to sympathize with the Orthodox position, not criticize it. But, I would say at least economically – even if that is too simplistic of a term – the Spirit does proceed from the Son. Jesus told his disciples that the Father would send the Spirit in the name/authority of Jesus (Jn. 14) and later Jesus says “I will send him to you” (Jn. 16). Furthermore, Jesus does breathe on the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Spirit – just as he did to Adam in the garden. So, just as we could say the Spirit plays a part in begetting the Son in time/space (Lk. 1:35), we wouldn’t say the Spirit begets the Son within the Trinitarian communion. Likewise, the Spirit can proceed from the Son in time/space without damaging his eternal procession from the Father alone. Whether his eternal procession is from the Father alone, or the Son also, is precisely where the debate is stuck. I’m conceding that for the most part the West hasn’t been paying attention.
Steve,
If that is what Kuyper is objecting to then Kuyper knew absolutely nothing of significance with respect to the Nicene controversies, let alone that of Ephesus, Chalcedon or the Monothelite/Dyothelite controversies. So let me sort this for you so you can see what I am talking about.
First energia is a biblical term. It occurs numerous times in the NT. The same goes with other theological terms the East uses like dunamis (1 Cor 12:6, Lk 6:19). So for example when The Trinity is revealed through their mighty acts, their power. The Incarnation is the supreme act of revelation through divine power and activity of the Trinity. But perhaps you mean to say that God does not reveal himself through his power and his acts, but some other way. I’d be interested in hearing about that, but such a view strikes me as prima facia sub-biblical or even anti-biblical. But I’ll wait your explication of your view to make an assessment.
Second, if we look at the work on the Nicene controversy for about the half last century, many of the standard works chronicle the role of the terms energia and dumanis. Take Kopecek’s History of Neo-Arianism, Ayres, The Legacy of Nicea, Barnes, The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa as prime examples. (Here I am not name dropping by trying to indicate places where you could look to see what I am talking about. )What separated out the Nicenes from the Eunomians for example was not whether they believed in divine energies or not, but what the relation was. For Eunomius, for example, divine activities were extrinsically related to God, metaphysically cut off and completely separate from the divine essence. The Divine essence was completely and absolutely simple, so as preclude any plurality. The Son therefore was an extrinsic work of God, in principle, no different from any other created work. In short, all acts of generation were acts of creation. For the Nicenes though, the relation between essence and act was not extrinsic but intrinsic. For them, the Son wasn’t related to the Father like dryness to heat, for dryness can be brought about by other means than direct heat. Rather the Father and the Son were related like heat to fire. They are intrinsically related, hence of one essence. Not all acts or energia of generation were acts or energia of creation. Without the concept of energy, the Nicene controversy is simply unintelligible.
We can move on to there to the Christological debates of Ephesus and Chalcedon. There much turns on the transfer of divine (and human properties, that is energies, from each nature to one divine person in the communicatio idiomatum, rather than a transfer of names as the Nestorians thought. Much the same can be said concerning the Monothelite/Dyothelite controversy and the teaching of the Sixth council, which expressly taught over against the Monothelites that not only are there two wills in Christ, but “two energies.” Of course you are free as a Protestant to reject the authoritative teaching of an Ecumenical council and profess some form of monoenergism.
In sum, the terms and notions are not only biblical, but patristic and conciliar as well.
Just because the terms you use have a biblical origin does not necessitate that you are using them in accordance with the text of Scripture. The same is true, of course, when we look at the vocabulary employed by the early fathers and the conciliar traditions. All of this remains to proven by you. The Mormons use the vocabulary of traditional Christianity in teaching heresy, yet no informed Christian would suppose that because they use the same terms that they actually mean the same thing as real Christianity in proclaiming the cultic faith of the Latter-day Saints.
What you have of course left out about the tradition(s) regarding all this vocabulary is that these words and their close relatives were often used in different and even contradictory ways historically both in the East and the West. At times, the orthodox used the vocabulary of the heretics and at other times the heretics employed the vocabulary of the orthodox. Part of the overall controversy concerning how the Trinity works and what was orthodox was what it was because the vocabulary itself was not always clear on the part of the church and those who would hold to heretical doctrine. Because of this, it’s certainly prejudicial to say that the Orthodox vocabulary is the vocabulary of the church in addressing these issues. Historically speaking, that’s simply untrue as it wasn’t until several centuries passed that the vocabulary crystallized in the East and West to describe the Trinity. And, by that time, once we get to figures like Palamas there is little in the way of similarity between what he writes and what is presented in the text of Scripture.
Kevin,
I never claimed that the fact that the terms are biblical therefore of necessity that the church fathers used them in the scriptural sense. So your counter argument fails to map what I did claim. What I was doing was bit by bit scraping away the unsupported assumptions that this is some quasi-Hindu view, which is what it was being glossed as. The first step in doing so is showing that first the terms are biblical and second that they are used plausibly or can be read in the way I suggest by highlighting particular passages and then moving on to patristic and conciliar sources. Now if the Reformed wish to reject the usage in the Sixth Council, they are free to do so, but then they’ll be at odds with not a few of their own representative teachers.
Needless to say in a blog combox I can’t give an entire lexigraphical history of terms and their usages. That is why I provided a sketch and gave references to specialists in the field. If you haven’t at least read the literature for the last half century, I can’t do much to convince you.
You chide me for leaving out that various figures in history used such terms in supposedly contradictory ways. That is something you’d have to establish, which you haven’t, nor alluded to any specialists who thinks as much. Second, all that picks out is that your project here is not mine. I didn’t aim to give an exhaustive historical and lexigraphical account. Third, I actually in fact did show how different figures used the terms. That was the whole point of my remarks about late Arianism in the form of Eunomianism. If you actually read what I wrote, this is clear as day. So factually your claim is wrong. I did what you said I did not. Fourth, even if the point had substance, it is irrelevant. Here is why. Because such terms that the Reformed use were also used by various persons and parties in contradiction to the way they use it. Do you mean to tell me that say Osiander used terms in the same way Calvin and Musculus did? Or that it is somehow problematic that pre-Nicene Sabellians used homoousious in a way different than Nicea?
Your remarks about the fluidity of terminology at certain points just exemplifies once again your dismissive methodology. You don’t actually engage the facts and arguments brought forward, you just toss mud to obfuscate. The fact that different parties used dikiao at the Reformation in different ways didn’t negate the fact that the Reformed used it in a particular sense. The same is true here. Consequently it is no way prejudicial to make the claim, let alone proffer evidence that the Orthodox usage is that of the fathers and the councils, particularly when the Orthodox have a continuity of usage and others lost it or never used them at all.
As for your remarks on Palamas, this is more assertive dismissal on your part. You simply assert that there is some great discontinuity between Palamas and biblical, patristic and conciliar teaching. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If anything, the scholarship on this score goes in the other direction, noting no significant semantical shift from patristic and conciliar usage to Palamas. (see Tollefsen’s, Activity and Participation in Late Antique and early Christian Thought.) Besides, if you could make the claim stick, you’d have to convict the Triadological and Christological tradition from Nicea through the Sixth Council of grossly misreading the scriptures in producing doctrines your confession lays claim to.
Of course you are free to cut off the branch you are sitting on.
Honestly, Perry, you’re doing the exact same thing I am doing here. You assert. I assert. Then, with Zorro-like bravado, you call me condescending for daring to disagree and not providing you with a full refutation. You have yet to make a real case and for all your protesting you have to admit (and have admitted, frankly) that this matter is not so ‘case-closed’ without taking into account all that’s already been mentioned in terms of historiography, lexicography, and many other things which you just can’t nail down in a comment or two on the Internet. As before, I just wish your rhetoric matched the actual qualifications you really have to make in establishing your point of view to anyone who might disagree. You’re welcome to believe what you want on this issue and many others, but your outright dismissal of the Western view is completely out of order as a result of what I’ve already demonstrated.
Steve,
To continue…
Now lets look at your other statements. The Orthodox don’t say we have an “energetic” relationship with God. The persons are revealed through their energies or activities. So your remark turns on a straw man. As far as “personal relationship” goes, while there is some truth in that, particularly in the way the Orthodox talk, in terms of a move from propositional knowledge to knowledge by acquaintance, such language has more to do with pop psychology and the Jesus movement of the 1960’s. The Bible just doesn’t talk that way. It talks about faith, hope and love, being in Christ and putting on Christ by baptism and such.
You state that the self-contained ontological Trinity is defined by its own sufficiently inter-trinitarian relationships, but this depends, famously, on Aristotle’s category of relation, and a decidedly Platonic/Augustinian way of understanding the Trinity. That doesn’t seem like some self definition to me.
Then you write that positing energy is to define the Creator by creation. Well this is an assertion on your part. You’d need an argument to support it. Contrary to your assertion, your own tradition maintains that God condescends in his revelation of himself to us and speaks to us through things we know. Moreover, the term itself and the concept is biblical.
If you think the biblical and Orthodox doctrine of the energies reduces Christianity to an epistemological absurdity, then you’ll need to actually demonstrate it rather than assert it.
I thought the Scriptures gave weight to the doctrine of theosis in teaching that we become partakers of the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4) Or that we are being conformed to the image of the Son (rom 8:29). Perhaps the problem is that you object to using biblical term in Greek to talk about Orthodox teachings? Perhaps you could explain what it is that you’re having trouble with with respect to theosis and energia?
Perry, you write: “As far as “personal relationship” goes, while there is some truth in that, particularly in the way the Orthodox talk, in terms of a move from propositional knowledge to knowledge by acquaintance, such language has more to do with pop psychology and the Jesus movement of the 1960’s. The Bible just doesn’t talk that way. It talks about faith, hope and love, being in Christ and putting on Christ by baptism and such.”
I do have to wonder how long it has been, Perry, since you’ve actually read the Reformers in any detail. Calvin, et al., resolutely claim that our knowledge of God is intensely personal in terms of a relationship between God and man and while it is true that language like “a personal relationship” has been co-opted by contemporary evangelicals, the real import behind such a phrase lies squarely with the claims of magisterial Protestantism in seeing God in Christ as personally and immediately accessible by faith through the hearing of the Word and by the work of the Spirit. This notion is inherently biblical and does not rest on pop psychology or faddish movements in history. Take some time to re-read Calvin’s Institutes (or just read the first question/answer of the Heidelberg Catechism for that matter!) and you will see what I mean. The mistaken opinion that the Protestant faith teaches some sort of propositional truth as the way to salvation is simply not taking into account the overall understanding of what it means to be a Christian by the Reformers and represents yet another caricature which you will have great difficulty in proving.
We must remember as well that the Reformers were not as attached to Plato and Aristotle as you suppose in reviewing the Filioque or other relevant issues and even Augustine’s contribution can be reasonably seen in another light than the way you have posited the matter. But, you are the one that has made these initial claims. I, for one, would like to see you actually justify them.
On the one hand, we are often told that the Reformers simply took what was uncontroversial for them as western Christians relative to the Trinity (which isn’t true a la Calvin and autotheos) and on the other hand they weren’t holding onto Platonic and Aristotelian glosses on the doctrine of the Trinity. Please pick one.
If you claim Augustine’s view can reasonably be seen in another light, then provide it.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your unestablished false dichotomy that somehow we’re forced to see the Reformers blindly accepting the West’s position or jumping wholesale into supporting Platonic and Aristotelian glosses. Neither of those options really represent the history well as I have already noted.
Quit asking me to substantiate my opinion when you haven’t already done the same for yours.
[…] Should we “Drop the Filioque?” – Kuyperian Commentary. […]
Adam, please forgive me – I have apparently gotten too used to reading remarks on these things from people who had only ever learned the same brief viewpoint repeated until it comprised their whole world. This is obviously not you. Still, to remove an addition, especially in such a case, is not changing the original (as in the Creed, as the original, as distinct from the various revisions it has suffered in the West between Rome and the NYC with the current Episcopal version) but restoring it, and returning to the statement of the Faith which its signators recognised as central to the Faith, and a sign of true faith for all people.
Kevin, the issue is not one of advocating revision, but of removing it. Much of the words invested here seem to have been along the line of, “What would Kuyper say?” as if the sun of Christian Tradition rose and set on one man. Not only would such a notion reek of revision, in and of itself, but fly as well in the face of Holy Scripture which says that no proclamation of Scripture is a private matter (II Pet. 1:20), despite the perceived brilliance of the proclaimer. Neither, then, is it a matter, primarily, of “what does Scripture say?” as this leads, inevitably, to a comparison of private interpretations. The matter is one of Apostolic teaching as received of the Apostles (Jude 1:3), and passed along through Christian generations by “faithful men.” (II Tim. 2:2). The Creed, as first compiled, is entirely, both Scriptural and in line with the transmitted dogma of the Apostles – whether Modern commentators are able to comprehend the Eternal Progression, “one Baptism for the remission of sins,” or any other detail against which one’s own sect’s tradition may deign to deny. The problem is not that the Fathers believed too much, but that we, in our own Modern-istic narcissism and rationalistic/minimalistic indolence, believe too little.
Patrick,
Of course, the Western tradition is almost entirely unrepresented here as this post has been flocked by the usual converts to Orthodoxy that seem to think this subject is of paramount importance to all concerned. I register mostly a yawn simply because the discussion is usually particularly uninformed on both sides–pretending there’s nothing to the Western view is just as ridiculous as providing a caricature of Orthodoxy. The Filioque has biblical roots and so any attempt to pass the matter off to apostolic succession is simply not going to work for those who still value a Reformed view of the Scriptures and its authority. The old canard of private interpretation contra sola Scriptura is also equally tiring and honestly I wish you folks would come up with an argument that actually made sense to a classical Protestant rather than continue to exult in the same old tired defenses.
Kevin,
As opposed to the usual converts to the Reformed tradition showing up….Of course this was a fracas that the Reformed picked. Strangely they seem completely unprepared to discuss the topic. That seems fairly typical for Reformed converts from evangelicalism once you get them off their Rome bad, Calvin good soap schpeel.
I must confess I yawn at your dismissive remarks which I assume cover my engagement of the issue as well. They make claims both uninformed and undefended. If you find the remarks misinformed or wrong, then issue corrections. But lobbing unsupported negations from on high only makes you look like an imperial snob in the nude.
You say the Filioque has biblical roots and I deny it. What you assert without reason I deny without reason.
I say its a product of Platonism instead, which underlies the exegesis used to demonstrate it. Subtract the metaphysical grid that structures and the doctrine cannot be justified by scripture alone, as exegetes like Carson attest.
So yawn all you like, but you bring nothing to the table. Maybe the Reformed can’t do any better?
Double yawn.
Mr. Johnson,
I have noticed that thus far all the discussions to this point involve reason and philosophy and not the Holy Scriptures. Although you make the claim that the filioque is Biblical, you provide no support for that statement with quotes from the sacred text. There is only one statement in the entire Bible that speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit, St.John 15:26, “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” Thus the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son which is exactly what the Orthodox Church teaches. The Holy Scriptures do no teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but only from the Father. When, Our Lord breathed on the Apostles in John 20:22, He was sending the Holy Spirit.
As far as Augustine is concerned, he is a very poor source of theology because he could not read the Scriptures in the original Greek, but relied on very flawed Latin translation. Calvin also relied on the flawed Vulgate and had only very limited access to the Eastern Fathers.
The issue should not be a matte or Eastern or Western ecclesiastical nationalism, but simply a matter of fidelity to the Faith of the Scriptures as expressed by the ancient undivided Church. The ancient undivided Church expressed its Faith through the Ecumenical Councils which wrote and approved the Creed without the filioque. That should end the discussion, because of John 15:26 is a divinely inspired statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son and the Bishop of Rome does not have authority superior to the Ecumenical Councils.
Archpriest John W. Morris, PhD
Steve, it is surprising that a Reformed writer should come forward with such a Pelagian statement as to say that God is knowable through the Bible. Do we have the capacity, in and of ourselves, to comprehend the things of God? Can we receive or comprehend Divinity, on any level whatsoever, through our own wits, wiles, or acumen? Or is it a matter of receiving grace from God to comprehend the Incomprehensible? And, if that grace is from God, and if that grace has made a verifiable change in our world, then there is more – much more – to God’s grace then His own passing assent – His, “unmerited favor,” wouldn’t you say? This, in and of itself, is a prime example of the Energetic aspect of grace, as Scripture tells us, (I Cor. 1-3; 2:14)
Kevin, you very proudly defend the “Reformed Tradition,” while damning the older Tradition which yours seems to have begun in search of, and has ever since strayed farther afield of the Truth, repeating its anthem, “Ever Reforming!”
However, the best you can do is to say that “your” opinion, whatever proud flag you wave above it, is “entirely biblical” needing only your own say-so, go on to condemn all other views as “boring” and therefore beneath your interest in answering. Pray, tell, why are you here?
Patrick,
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about–I’m not ‘proudly defending’ anything nor have I damned ‘the older Tradition’ (as if there was only one). I don’t hold just my opinion on this–you’re speaking of an entire tradition in the West like it was something I came up with yesterday.
Kevin, you are an excellent example of the accomplished scholars of Calvinism. I do hold out hope for you, nonetheless, for with God, nothing shall be impossible.
Calling Poe
Kevin, I have marked that article to look up on Atla later. In the meantime, I seem to have missed how Kuyper’s opinion on these things is all that pivotal, or why he is any more an authority on the matter than, say, Seraphim Rose, John Zizioulas, or St. Photius.
Also, I am curious where you get that Augustinian Platonism hinges on Hegelian philosophy. Are you saying that Augustine read Hegel, or that we need to employ Hegelian Synthesis to recognise Platonic (or, Valentinian or Manicheean) influences in his writings?
I do encourage you to keep reading, and, just as importantly, to read sources other than those where you hope to find your own opinions repeated. Thus far, your contribution here has ranged from, “Not neither!” to, “Yeah, what he said!” I hold you have far better sense than that, and encourage, beg,
you to exercise it.
Patrick,
Kuyper’s opinion is pivotal in this instance because this website is primarily concerned with his opinion or like-minded thinking. I’m not sure what is so controversial about that. I didn’t say anyone had to agree with Kuyper though I think there is more merit to what he is saying than some here are making plain.
I didn’t say “Augustinian Platonism hinges on Hegelian philosophy.” I said the historiographical (read: the way we read and understand history) approach in reading Augustine with Platonic or Neoplatonic concerns in mind is Hegelian and idealistic in nature and ought to be questioned as a result.
I already read sources other than those I disagree with and I’m not sure where you get the impression that I don’t. My contribution here is my contribution. As I said above, no need has surfaced to say more than I already have given the standard party line being presented by Orthodox adherents here. When someone makes an actual case worth hearing, I’m happy to deal with it further.
*other than those I agree with
Indicating how others not party to this convo read the text and that ought to be questioned is not a demonstration that others have in fact misread the text. Plenty of non-Hegelian Augustinian specialists admit substantial platonic influence on Augustine.
Kevin, there is a story of an actress who was speeding down the highway in her new Ferrari. At one point she nearly caused a truck driver to jack-knife. A few miles later, he caught up to her on a remote stretch of road and managed her off to the shoulder. He angrily approached the car, ordered her out, and told her to stay inside the little box he was drawing on the ground with his thump stick. He then proceeded to demolish her car – headlights, windshield, side glass, hood, doors fender, even prying the bumpers off. All this time he kept hearing her laughing, which, of course, did nothing to slow his work on the car. Finally, he had done all the damage he could do with his 2-foot tire thumper and his pocketknife, and he turned and asked her what she thought was so funny. “I stepped out of the box three times, and you didn’t even see me!”
Reading sources one disagrees with is hardly stepping out of one’s box, just like she never, really, left hers. It is all too easy to read something with the a priori assurance that the writer is wrong, and then treat it like a crossword puzzle to show how it is. In the long run, there is more to be said for the crossword than for that kind of reading; at least the puzzle solver expands her vocabulary!
What if there is something about knowing God that you don’t already know, Kevin? What if there is something He has shown somebody, even before the Reformed movement appeared, that you can learn and grow from? What if there is more to holiness than having the “answers” one is content with? Is godliness an intellectual exercise, similar to crosswords, or sudoku, or do we need some skin in that game? That is, do we learn merely from reading, or from prayer, worship, and the Mysteries of God?
Patrick,
I don’t think we know each other outside this thread, but I’ve consistently read both inside and outside of the box so to speak for a good twenty plus years now. I realize you’re fully convinced of your viewpoint and the relevance of the Orthodox faith, but my experience has been something different.
If there is something about knowing God that I don’t already know, I trust God will reveal it to me. But, like the warnings against false prophets in places like Deuteronomy 18, he’s not going to go against his word as we have it in the Scriptures in doing so. It’s interesting to me that at the beginning of this comment thread there were all sorts of rejections on the part of the faithful that Kuyper had to be wrong about how mystical Eastern Orthodoxy is and yet here in your final appeal what is it we’re to consider–“the Mysteries of God”?
The chief mystery of the New Testament was not in fact some incense-filled presentation and encounter of the Eucharist but rather the glorious truth and reality of God’s word spread even to the Gentiles–literally to the whole world–‘Christ in us, the hope of glory.’ (Colossians 1:27)
Do you know what I mean by, “Mysteries,” Kevin? You must, as being so quick to condemn them as outside the Scriptures. But what is extrabiblical, or heretical, about such things, commanded in Scripture, such as Baptism and Holy Communion? And, yes, the knowledge of God is essential, so why should we be so quick to condemn the means of transmitting that knowledge? This drives us back to some basic questions, doesn’t it? Can you tell me,
Where did the Nicene Fathers get the standard by which they were able to discern which Christian writings to canonise for reading at the Eucharist?
What standard of faith did the Church have in those first three centuries, when this or that town may have had a copy, say, of Luke/Acts, a Corinthian letter, and three or four writings which would be found as non-canonical? With that kind of background, consider your first answer.
Do you accept the Creed, and the Councils, or does your sense of the Church start with Dordrecht or Westminster (or later)?
Is knowing God an intellectual endeavor, or is prayer involved?
What does the Bible say about the means God has given us for acquiring His grace?
What is grace, and how is it able to effect us?
Yes, we’ve had lots of conversations, mainly on Facebook.
Well, it would be good to know who you really are — you are welcome to let me know via FB if you want to keep your identity here as anonymous.
I’m not condemning the notion of mystery in the Eucharist. I’m denying there’s something additional that I need to know or experience aside from what’s already provided in the Scriptures.
To answer your questions, the Nicene Fathers merely reflected what the church overall did somewhat gradually in her early years. She eventually recognized the nature of the books in question as God-breathed. The authority for those books, however, rests not in the proclamation that they are canonical by the church but rather in the books themselves by the very fact that they’re God’s word. That’s not to say the authority of the church is irrelevant, rather it’s derivative from the Scripture’s inherent authority drawn from its nature as God’s Word. In short, then, the Nicene Fathers recognized what they did from the authority of the Scriptures.
The rule of faith that the church had in “this or that town” was the same faith once for all delivered to the saints and substantially equivalent to what we have in the Scriptures. There’s no way to prove that the oral tradition at that time was any different than the written one and it wasn’t until much later that there was a clear departure between the oral and written records.
I accept the creeds and the councils, especially the first four. The seventh I reject out of hand. I would generally endorse the famous statement of Lancelot Andrewes:
“One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.”
My sense of the church or better, the people of God, begins with Adam and Eve, not Dordrecht. 🙂
Knowing God comprises a noumenal element but is also about prayer. The answer is BOTH/AND, not one or the other.
We don’t acquire his grace. He gives it to us. The chief or ordinary means of grace are the word, the sacraments, and prayer. Chiefly, ‘faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.’
Grace is the unmerited favor of God and its work saves us. It is chiefly seen as the action of the Holy Spirit and received by us in faith.
The II Council of Nicea, the 7th Ecumenical Council is an expression of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. By rejecting the 7th Council you are rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit who led the Fathers of the 7th Council and the Church to accept their decisions.
Your objection to the veneration of the human image of Christ shows the influence of Calvin’s heretical Nestorian like Christology. We confess our belief in the Incarnation and the deification of Christ’s human nature, the communication of attributes, when we honor his image on an icon. We also affirm the sanctification of matter through icons, because by becoming material through the Incarnation, Christ has begun the sanctification of the material world that St. Paul wrote about in Romans 8: 20-25, and in Revelation 21:1 when St. John wrote of the new heaven and the new earth.
I forgot to mention that your definition of grace is incorrect. Grace and our salvation have nothing to do with merit. Grace is an uncreated and fully divine energy of God flowing from His hidden essence. Therefore grace is not an attitude of God towards the believer, but is a life transforming experience of God Himself.
i didn’t say grace had anything to do with merit. The reason we say grace is unmerited favor is to distinctly contrast it to other notions, particularly Roman, that would say otherwise. We can simply speak of grace as God’s favor if Roman considerations are not in play.
The notion that grace is some sort of energy or substance is not a biblical one and remains the faulty rationalization of the East.
You do not understand the teachings of the Fathers, especially as summarized by St. Gregory Palamas on the essence and energies of God. God’s eternal essence remains hidden to creatures like ourselves. However through his divine and uncreated energies we have an actual experience of God. Grace is not a substance because grace is not created, but is a form of communion with God that changes us. Calling grace unmerited favor or undeserved merit makes Grace an attitude of God towards the believer that remains outside of the person, not an actual personal experience of God. St. Paul expressed the same idea when he wrote that our bodies are a “temple of the Holy Spirit,” I Corinthians 6:19. If our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit we actually experience God, not just an attitude towards the believer by God. Your theology reduces the grace of God to something created by God, not a real transforming experience of God. This comes from Calvin’s denial of the communication of attributes and the deification of the human nature of God. Liberate yourself from Calvin and read the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, they have a lot more credibility than Calvin.
The history you present for the Seventh Council is a convenient one for your position. The council was neither entirely ecumenical nor free of issues. Even if if were what you say, the fact that it endorses non-biblical ideas such as icon worship makes it less than biblical and therefore less than apostolic.
You copy old Lutheran canards about Calvin badly when you claim he was Nestorian. Such claims are simply untrue and remain *undemonstrated* by you in the main. Regardless of your view of the incarnation, icons are a violation of the First and Second Commandments and are to be condemned on that basis.
The 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II in 787, was indeed an Ecumenical Council and an infallible expression of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. The 1st commandment condemns the worship of idols. We do not worship icons, we honor or venerate them to honor Christ who is represented on the Icon. The Fathers of Nicea II made a very clear distinction between worship and veneration. Besides at the time that God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, God has not yet shown Himself to humanity.Through the incarnation,God has shown Himself to humanity. Did not our Lord say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”John 14:9. When I pray before an icon or kiss an icon, I am not venerating the paint and wood, but the Incarnate Christ portrayed on the icon.
By denying the communication of attributes and the deification of the human nature of Christ, Calvin is most certainly teaching Nestorianism. Compare Calvin’s description of the work of Our Lord in his Institutes with the 12 Anathemas against Nestorius and you will see that Calvin is most definitely Nestorian. Calvin’s Nestorianism compromises his whole theology, which is also completely un-Biblical.
I offer to help out !! I have already set up a web page.
http://www.keepthefilioque.com
Feel free to submit articles in defense of the filioque to keepthefilioque(at)gmail.com and I will post them. All to the Glory of God.
It won’t let me comment over there, but isn’t it odd that you’re posting articles that argue thet the filioque should *not* divide, in an attempt to make the filioque continue to divide?
The Scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but is sent by the Son. (John 15;26) One could also say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That is the teaching of the Bible. Even when Our Lord breathed on the Apostles that they may receive He sent the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit did not begin to exist after only after Christ’s Resurrection. The whole argument in favor of the “filioque” clause is based not on the text of the Holy Scriptures, but on a vain effort to use human reason to understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
There is another very important point, the Bishop of Rome has no authority to unilaterally altar the Creed as written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils. The 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325 wrote the first part of the Creed. The 2nd Ecumenical Councils 1st Constantinople in 381 completed the Creed. The remaining 5 Councils affirmed the Creed as written by the first 2 Councils and forbade any additions or alterations to the Creed. The Eastern Church objects to the papal claim to possess superior authority than the Ecumenical Councils. This is an argument that I would think a Protestant would understand.
Mr. Kupyer’s arguments are ridiculous. If there is anything that Orthodox theology emphasizes it is the Incarnation, which is the ground of our salvation. However, the Reformed Movement suffers from the Nestorian like Christology advocated by Calvin. Calvin denied the communication of attributes and the deification of Christ’s human nature. The excessive emphasis on justification leads to a legalistic doctrine of salvation that neglects to emphasize what happens to the believer after he or she is justified. That is sanctification, which is done by the Holy Spirit. The believer is deified as the human nature of Chris was deified. St. Paul expresses this teaching in II Corinthians 3;18, and again in II Corinthians 5;17 ‘Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” St. Peter also taught that salvation is a process of growth in II Peter 2;2 “Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation;” St. Peter taught that through our salvation, we become “partakers of the divine nature.” II Peter 1:4. Orthodox certainly do no neglect the importance of Church, worship or Sacrament by falling into a mindless mysticism.
Fr. John W. Morris
All things considered, I would think the question might be better better framed, “Ought we to look farther, or can we confidently assume that our own traditions are so wise and complete as to take Jesus’ own authority onto ourselves to declare ourselves to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church on the mere weight of doctrine / say-so?”
I am not a theologian or a philosopher, but I am an historian. I can trace a continuity of belief and practice that comes from the Holy Scriptures and was expressed by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and is preserved today by the Orthodox Church. I can also identify the departure from that continuity in the West beginning with Tertullian who corrupted the Gospel by conforming it to the concepts of Roman law and ended his life as a Montanist heretic. This departure was increased by Augustine who based his theology on an error filled Latin translation of the Bible, had little knowledge of the Eastern Fathers, and showed the influence of neo-Plaonism and his former allegiance to Manichaeism as well as his guilt from his previous immoral life. Then Rome separated itself from the other 4 Patriarchs and during the Scholastic period departed further from the Faith of the ancient undivided Church by relying excessively on human reason as a source of theological truth. The Reformed Movement is an even more radical departure from the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. The Reformed Movement began with Zwingli, who threw out lamost 1,500 years of Christian worship and invented a new religion based on his own theories, that only bears a superficial resemblance to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. Calvin was the heir to Zwingli and departed even further from the Faith of the ancient Church through the rejection of free will that all of the Fathers taught, except Augustine, who, if he was a Father, he was a relatively unimportant and minor Father and would have remained so had it not been for Western nationalism. Calvin also taught a Nestorian like Christology that compromises his entire doctrinal system. He had only very limited access to the Eastern Fathers and was overly influenced by Augustine. My point is that I can trace what I believe and how I worship back in an unbroken line to the Apostles. Those of the Reformed Movement can only trace what they believe and how they worship to 16th century Switzerland. As a priest of the Church of Antioch, I belong to a Church founded by St. Peter and Paul. Those of the Reformed movement belong to a Church founded by a French lawyer living in exile in Geneva.
[…] Should we “Drop the Filioque?” […]