I believe

ACOLYTE4236 SAID:

“So you agree that John 15 doesn’t teach the Filioque, right?”

Agreed.

“You agree that the doctrine the creed teaches is not derived from John 15.”

i) Well, that’s more complicated. For one thing, the creed, like any writing, is just a set of words on a page. If there was no intelligent life in the universe, the creed wouldn’t mean a thing.

ii) On the face of it, the filioque wording says less than it means. It’s a term of art.

The filioque wording doesn’t teach the filioque doctrine. At best it’s a metonymy. If you didn’t know the history of doctrine which underlies that phraseology, you couldn’t reconstruct the doctrine from the wording alone.

So the text of the creed doesn’t teach the filioque doctrine. The doctrine is underdetermined by the text. The actual wording is neutral on the distinction between economic and hypostatic processing.

iii) Now, if we treat the creed as a vehicle to express the intent of the framer (or editor), then, in that ulterior sense, the creed teaches the filioque doctrine. But that’s rather reductionistic.

“Or are you claiming that John 15 teaches hypostatic generation?”

No, I’m not.

“So even though the clause teaches hypostatic origination and the Reformed confessions take it in that way, you are suggesting that one is not bound to it? So are you suggesting one can just substitute a meaning they prefer to the Reformation Confessions on the doctrine of the Trinity? So when as a church member professes and minister profess it in their confessions they aren’t agreeing to be bound by it?”

That series of questions overlooks a number of distinctions:

i) I doubt the average church member has much idea of what the filioque phrase historically stands for. As you know, the literature on this controversy is vast and multilingual. So I doubt he’s consciously substituting one meaning for another.

ii) The intent of the framer (or, in this case, anonymous redactor) doesn’t obligate the worshiper. To whom do you think we profess a creed? In public worship, God is the object. I’m affirming my faith in God and to God.

My first and foremost obligation is to God, not to the framer of the creed–or some anonymous redactor. The framer has no authority over me. My duty is to believe what God requires of me.

iii) If the creed were being used as a condition of church membership or ordination, then there would either need to be a mutually agreed upon meaning, or–barring that–any difference of opinion would have to be stated by the candidate for ordination or membership, leaving it to the discretion of the powers-that-be to decide if that falls within the acceptable parameters of dissent.

“And is the case of the Reformed Confessions teaching the Filioque like the one you suggest, where one is not bound by a previous usage? Is subscription to the Confessions like a contract?”

Depends on the setting. Depends on whether or not strict subscription to the creed is a condition of membership and/or ordination. In that case, it functions like a contract.

However, I don’t think strict subscription is generally a condition of ordination–much less church membership.

Presbyterianism (to take one example) has an appellate system, and it’s up to the session, presbytery, and ultimately the general assembly to determine how to interpret and enforce the doctrinal standards of that denomination. At least, that’s how I understand the process.

“And is the issue whether one is bound by that intent or whether the Confessions teach a doctrine which is not scripturally justifiable?”

i) The filioque wording is scripturally justifiable. Jn 15 uses filioque wording. So there’s nothing improper about creedal wording which reproduces or paraphrases scriptural wording.

ii) And since the filioque is meant to teach the same thing that Jn 15 teaches, there’s nothing wrong with affirming it in the Johannine sense.

“Doesn’t this concede that the doctrine intended by the Reformed confessions is not Scriptural?”

Traditionally speaking, that might be the case. Creeds are not infallible.

“I agree that the Creed and the Reformed Confessions are supposed to reflect Scriptural intent, but it seems you concede that they don’t as they have been taught and are *currently* professed.”

In terms of how the filioque is currently professed, I doubt there’s uniformity. You’d have to draw a rough-and-ready distinction between the clergy and the laity.

And even at the clerical level, a lot would depend on who their theology prof. happened to be. For example, Douglas Kelly emphasizes historical theology, and he defends the filioque. On the other hand, John Murray emphasized exegetical theology.

“If the Reformed Confessions that teach it and are a subservient norm, then why not protest and change it since you concede that it teaches an unscriptural doctrine about God?”

You asked that question before, and I’ve answered that question before. Indeed, I’ve given a detailed answer. Why should I repeat myself when you can’t be bothered to remember what I already told you?


“So if the non-scriptural doctrine is retained or not is of no consequence to you?”

Now you’re resorting to dissimulation. That didn’t take long.

Since, as I’ve said on several occasions now, the wording is scriptural, to retain the wording isn’t synonymous with retention of an unscriptural doctrine.

“And is the wording the issue or the meaning? If the latter then the discussion here of wording is not relevant, is it?”

There is no one issue since the answer is person-variable and context-dependent.

“So if it’s a nominal part, then remove it and protest Roman unscriptural doctrines in your Creed and Confessions.”

i) The wording itself is perfectly innocuous. So there’s nothing to protest.

ii) Moreover, no one is forcing me to profess something against my will. This isn’t like Archbishop Laud trying to impose the BCP on the Puritans–by force of law.

“Second, noting its source was irrelevant since this was already known and in fact a capitulation that it wasn’t derived from Scripture alone.”

The source is relevant to the individual who professes that article of the creed with the Scriptural source in mind. It’s quite relevant to his intent.

“So are you suggesting that there are other considerations upon which the doctrine can be justified other than Scripture alone?”

No.

“Then remove it at your local church.”

i) Not my responsibility. I’m not a church officer.

ii) In addition, whether or not a creed can be unilaterally revised depends on the polity the church.

“Why not argue publically that the doctrine can’t be justified by Scripture alone and should be removed?”

Grudem has already done that (in reference to the “Descensus ad Infernos”).

“So why do you recommend reinterpretation rather than a protest?”

“Reinterpret” what? The filioque or the “descensus ad infernos”?

i) Actually, Calvinists already reinterpret the latter.

ii) I myself don’t reinterpret the “descensus ad infernos.” I simply don’t recite it.

“You concede that the doctrine can’t be justified by Scripture alone so what you seem to be suggesting is that individuals privately reinterpret the Creed and cope with the situation rather than protest it as a non-scriptural doctrine about the Trinity.”

i) ”Coping” is a fairly hysterical way of putting it. This isn’t like recanting under torture.

ii) Strictly speaking, to say we “reinterpret” the creed assumes that the intention of the framer must be overridden, as if the wording has the interpretation built into it. But that’s not the case.

“This seems like you are advocating a kind of confessional equivocation and intentional duplicity.”

Once again, that oversimplifies the issue:

i) Intentions are inherently private. One worshiper can’t access to what another worshiper intends when both of them recite a creed. And a phrase like the filioque doesn’t specify their intent since the wording isn’t that specific to begin with. So it’s not as though the words affirm one thing while the mind affirms the contrary.

ii) Moreover, who is the audience? If one’s profession is directed at God, then it’s hardly duplicitous to mentally affirm economic procession. You have no intention of deceiving God, and you couldn’t do so even if you tried.

iii) If the creed were being used in a membership or ordination exam, then mutual understanding would be necessary.

“So people (ministers and lay) should profess adherence to the teaching that they know is not Scriptural, but privately reinterpret it? How is that not deceit?”

i) Professing a creed isn’t the same thing as professing the intention of the framer. The creed is simply a vehicle, which may be put to more than one use by more than one individual, or corporate entity. Both synchronically and diachronically, it can serve more than one purpose. Your conclusion is predicated on a false assumption.

ii) For one thing, creeds are normally the end-product of collaborate effort, with many different players, with varying agendas, while the final text is comes down to a majority (or plurality) vote. In addition, creeds can be revised (e.g. 1644; 1677; 1698 Baptist Confession).

Whether the document is the result of unitary authorship or composite authority complicates original intent. Oftentimes there is no simple or singular intent which underwrites the writing.

iii) Moreover, “privacy” doesn’t mean “concealment,” as if you mask your true intentions. It’s not as though I’m keeping my views of the filioque a secret. They’re available for the asking. Indeed, I’ve made them available for the asking.

iv) However, professing a creed in public worship isn’t like submitting to a one-on-one interrogation, where you’re grilled on your detailed understanding of, and agreement with, each provision.

“So again, do you agree that as contained in the Catholic Creed, as in the Reformed Confessions and as intended by said authors the doctrine is not exegetically derivable from Scripture alone?”

i) In my opinion, the filioque doctrine is not exegetically derivable from scripture alone (which is all that matters). However, the actual wording of the text doesn’t select for hypostatic procession. The wording is fairly generic.

ii) We also need to distinguish between the intent of the anonymous redactor who introduced the filioque into the creed, and subsequent refinements in the formulation by various theologians.