Monday, December 21, 2009

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.

15 comments:

  1. “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.”

    Do words have meaning? Do they have a history? And is there such a thing as original intent? If so, then the words pick out a doctrine that you admit is not scriptural.

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

    If it’s a term of art then the words pick out a certain meaning and so the words can’t be employed apart from that meaning in that text without ignorance or a deliberate putting aside of the original intent

    Moreover, I don’t have to appeal to the Creed, I can appeal to plenty of Reformed Confessions. Take the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

    “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father the Word (or Son) and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and Eternity, each having the whole Divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided, the Father is of none neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is Eternally begotten of the Father, the holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and Being; but distinguished by several peculiar, relative properties, and personal relations…”

    Now is that honestly capable of an economic interpretation? Is the language there “underdetermined by the text?” Is the wording there “neutral between an economic and hypostatic” procession? How about the WCF?

    “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

    Do these Reformed Confessions teach eternal hypostatic origination or economic sending?

    Moreover, the ignorance of a reader isn’t relevant. Nor is whether a reader could reconstruct the doctrine from the words alone. This isn’t true of many doctrines contained in the Reformed confessions. The issue is whether the Reformed Confessions teach doctrines derivable from Scripture alone or not. So this is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “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.”

    So its reductionistic to take a documents’ usage of terms in the way its authors intended? Got it. So are you suggesting that we shouldn’t “we treat the creed as a vehicle to express the intent of the framer?”

    “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.”

    So the average church member is bound only by what he knows phrases stand for in Reformed Confessions? And is he unconsciously substituting one meaning for the other? And do you consciously substitute one for the other or recommend that others do the same since you admit that the Reformed Confessions teach a doctrine not found in or derivable from Scripture alone?

    “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.”

    So are you suggesting that the intent of the framer of the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession fail to obligate the worshiper when they teach an eternal hypostatic generation?

    “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.”

    If your foremost obligation is to God, isn’t this all the more reason to protest false doctrines about God in your own church? And does your church expect you to abide by the teaching? Did you object to it when you went through the procedures for membership?

    “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.”

    But again, its not just the Creed, it’s the Reformed Confessions. Are the Confessions a condition for ordination or membership? As for the rest, again, do you know or can you give any significant examples where the Reformed have permitted widespread difference on the Filioqueist construal of the Trinity? And is the issue what is a condition for membership or are all doctrines taught justifiable from Scripture alone? If you say that the Filioque isn’t justifiable in light of Sola Scriptura but you are able to dissent, then this just admits the internal inconsistency-the Reformed teach Sola Scriptura and doctrines which are not derivable from Scripture alone. So the point has been conceded.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “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.”

    So if it functions like a contract, are people pen-ultimately bound by Confessions they profess adherence to when they teach the Filioque? And even if not, do you admit that the WCF and the LBC teach a doctrine concerning the very nature of God that is extra-biblical?

    “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.”

    I agree that that’s the case and that sometimes they allow dissent. Bu given the recent fracas over the Federal Vision, do you really think bodies like that and your own will allow ministers to dissent from the Filioque? Good luck. Secondly, this is of secondary importance. The primary importance is if the Filioque doctrine as professed in the WCF and the LBC is derivable from Scripture alone or not. If not, it is still teaching false doctrine about the nature of God regardless of how strict or lax subscription standards are.

    “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. “

    Arian wording is scripturally justifiable too. Jesus is the “firstborn of creation” and the like. Does that imply it is acceptable? Obviously not. This is more hand waving.

    Secondly, I referred to the Confession in my statement that you are responding to, not the Nicene Creed. The WCF and the LBC do not teach a doctrine scripturally justifiable as you admit so its language is not scripturally justifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “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.”

    This is an obfuscation. It is meant to teach the same thing that John 15 teaches since its advancers think that John 15 teaches a hypostatic generation not an economic sending. Hence it fails to map the biblical teaching. Again, the target is the Reformed Confessions, so switching to the Nicene Creed is no help. The question is about what Reformed bodies teach, not whether the papally approved language inserted into the Nicene Creed is acceptable on its face. You’ve mistakenly substituted one question for the other.

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

    Steve responded: “Traditionally speaking, that might be the case. Creeds are not infallible.”

    Does that address the question? Is the doctrine intended by the Reformed confessions non-scriptural and non-derivable from scripture or not? If the Reformed Confession is fallible and in error about the doctrine of God, don’t you think it should be reformed or should the false doctrine they teach be left in place?

    “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.

    I am not sure how far I can take your doubts about uniformity. Did you take a poll or is this pure anecdotal? Let’s just take the clergy. Isn’t the question not what they currently think, but what the Confessions teach? Is there doctrinal uniformity on the virgin birth in the PCUSA? Is that the kind of situation you are saying is acceptable or some other?

    “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.”

    And does this suggest that one accepted the Filioque and the other didn’t? In any case its not really relevant since the WCF and the LBC teach a false doctrine about the Trinity or rather a false Trinity.

    Acolyte wrote: “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?”

    Steve wrote: “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?”

    Oh I agree you’ve responded, but you’ve never answered it. It is an obvious case of special pleading. Calvinists have simply been caught with their theological pants down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Acolyte wrote: “So if the non-scriptural doctrine is retained or not is of no consequence to you?”

    Steve wrote: “Now you’re resorting to dissimulation. That didn’t take long.”

    Not in the slightest. You wrote I believe that its inclusion one way or the other wasn’t of consequence to you. I asked a question based on what you wrote coupled with your admission that it’s a false doctrine about God. Perhaps the problem is here of transference? ;)

    “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.”

    The language is scriptural? So scripture says “…the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son…” somewhere?

    And retaining the wording is tantamount to retention of the unscriptural doctrine when your Confessions teach the unscriptural doctrine and use those passages for scriptural proofs.

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

    Steve wrote: “There is no one issue since the answer is person-variable and context-dependent.”

    So the answer to the question of whether the Reformed Confessions teach a doctrine which is justifiable from Scripture alone is person variable and context dependent? What amazing documents these must be!

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

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

    Again here I think you are thinking of the Creed, but I am referring to the Confessions which teach an eternal hypostatic generation as do all of the commentaries on them that I know of. So either you admit that the false doctrine is innocuous or you should agree that you should protest it.

    “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.”

    Perhaps not, but you are complicit by your silence aren’t you, concerning what your Confessions teaching, teaching false things about the nature of God?

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

    Steve wrote: ‘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.”

    All the more reason then that it is relevant what the original intent of the authors of the WCF and the LBC and the successive generation of theologians who supported and teach false doctrine about the nature of God.

    Acolyte wrote: “Then remove it at your local church.”

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

    So much for the priesthood of all believers. Aren’t all believers in a body a bearer of some measure of responsibility for what their church teaches? Do you mean to tell me that you couldn’t talk to your pastor and/or other church representatives to move them to remove it? I find this hard to believe.

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

    That speaks to the mechanism by which reformation can occur, but it leaves untouched the question of why it hasn’t so occurred or why you haven’t started the process.

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

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

    Has he done that for the Filioque? And if Waters or others have already argued publically against the Federal Vision do you refrain from arguing against it publically too?

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

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

    The Filioque.

    “i) Actually, Calvinists already reinterpret the latter.”

    True, but not the Filioque, at least not on any widespread or notable way or degree.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Acolyte wrote: “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.”

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

    Not hysterical at all. Psychological coping can be quite calm in terms of disposition. Its what Theonomists do in non-Theonomist congregations and vice versa.

    “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. “

    So the history of usage and original intent can’t be established? Is that what you are suggesting? And do you suggest that this is the case with the WCF and the LBC?

    “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.”

    Again, I am referring to teaching in the Reformed Confessions, not the Creed. Even if it were the Creed, the Confession nails down its meaning for members.

    “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.”

    Sure not lying to God, just to fellow church members and church authorities.

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

    So since the WCF and the LBC are used in membership or ordination, then mutual understanding is necessary in the case of the Filioque?

    Acolyte wrote: “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?”

    Steve wrote: “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.”

    How about adherence to a Confession faith? How do the corporate entities that subscribe to the WCF or the LBC for example use it? Oh to teach the Filioque. So in that case, wouldn’t that be a case of deceit? (So no, my conclusion is not predicated on a false assumption.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. “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).”

    This goes without saying but irrelevant. And really can your Confessions be revised on serious matters like the Filioque? I think rather people just dig in their heels and defend doctrines one way or another they know to be false. They make excuses, they pass the buck. See above.

    “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.”

    Perhaps, but are you claiming this is the case with the WCF and the LBC in teaching the Filioque? If so, you’ll need to provide an argument. Moreover, this would come as quite a surprise to major Reformed theologians-Turretin, Hodge, Warfield, Gill, Bavink, et al.

    “iii) Moreover, “private” 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.”

    That goes with not protesting extra-biblical doctrines in your own church I suppose.

    “iii) 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. “

    Yes, I am sure it makes it easier to fudge past that admitted extra-biblical doctrines.

    Acolyte wrote: “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?”

    Steve wrote: “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.”

    Again, the language in the Reformed Confession which nails down the meaning of the Creedal language for Calvinists isn’t neutral and does select for hypostatic generation.

    Thanks Steve, this was fun. I think this was the best Christmass present from a Calvinist...ever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So are you suggesting that the intent of the framer of the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession fail to obligate the worshiper when they teach an eternal hypostatic generation?

    Pretty much. You seem mighty unfamiliar with the way both Presbyterians and Baptists use their confessions.

    The issue here is the "worshipper." By this do you refer to an elder or deacon or any church member or a visitor?

    As a rule in both Baptist and Presbyterian circles, the higher the office the more strict the subscription is, and even then (a) scrupling is allowed, and (b) the boundaries are up to the body...in the Presbyterian system which Steve has gone over already...in the Baptists beginning with the local church and, depending on how much authority the Association is accorded, up the chain.

    A church member would only be required to affirm the Trinity in general but this doesn't have to include such theological minutae as the way the local church interprets the language you've selected. In fact, to take another example a member of a Presbyterian church can even be, shock, horror, an AMYRALDIAN, or ARMINIAN or even a, shock, horror, CREDOBAPTIST! How scandalous! So, despite your tendentious characterizations that one is "lying" to fellow church members,sir, there is no such thing going on. A member is bound to sit under the teaching of the eldership, but s/he is NOT bound to affirm every jot and tittle of the WCF or LBC.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems to me that any institution which engages in a wholesale re-interpreting of its foundational charters, and particularly one which trades clarity for ambiguity through encouraging ubiquitous private interpretation, has abandoned its raison d'être and has substituted in its place existence qua existence. In this case all argumentation is towards the status quo, as I think Steve demonstrates (in that he admits filioque is not scriptural, yet argues for its acceptance: status quo).

    It seems to me that the main contention here is really the basis for excommunication. Who is permitted to commune? As outlined by Steve, pretty much everyone (especially since one can profess the resurrection from the dead while holding a privite interpretation which believes "only spiritually"). Yet it is doctrine, and more specifically the private re-interpretation of the incarnation in the flesh of Christ as a "spiritual incarnation" (qua docetai), which the Scriptures themselves warn are anathema (and implicitly that to commune in such a state is to eat and drink damnation).

    Perry argues that private re-interpretation is duplicitous. I can't help but agree. Would I tell my wife I love her while privately meaning "when I am not in the throes of another woman"? Such is, in my mind, the scandal of private re-interpretation: it is the enemy of love. In privately re-interpreting a church's confession, they cease to be worship, but rather political manoeuvring. Anything which is the enemy of love is the enemy of God, because God is love.

    There is one further troubling aspect, in my mind. When the ruler of a country dispenses with the clear intent of a constitution*, the country rapidly finds itself in tyrany. The same is true with regard to church confessions: denial of communion (or ordination) becomes arbitrary to the whim of the ruling party. Thus, when Dave and John both reject the virgin birth, only Dave's ministerial candidacy is rejected on these grounds (perhaps because John's dad is golf-buddies with the chair of the evaluation board?). Any ruler (or oligarchy as the case may be) which is not bound (at least in some way) to the past has no basis to uphold any previous commitments. This is precisely the problem which Ultramontanism attempts to solve (I think inadequately) by requiring a pope's fealty to past rulings. Nevertheless, arbitrary rule is clearly the enemy of the Scriptural image of the messiah.

    *-I am of course not speaking about the clarification of ambiguity, but the rejection of an explicit meaning.

    In short, even if Steve's argument for re-interpretation (public or private) succeeds, I (personally) would never join such a church as I think it would be a threat to my salvation.

    Secondarily, I think Perry's argument against Calvanist professions of the filioque holds. I think it can be argued that the requirement for all professed doctrines to have clear Scriptural support (as one of the distinctives of Calvanism) is one of its raisons d'être (if not the raison in its entirety). If the Calvanist system is to hold, it *must* actualize its potentia. If the double hypostatic procession is not scriptural, it must, then be purged. Failure to do so *is* a threat to the core of Calvanism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. npmccallum,

    I don't know about all that, but I do believe that Satan is silent in his wicked heart on the Creeds seeing he is a firm believer in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Christian Church.

    And these Three plus the Church are One and Satan knows it!

    The problem, as you are certainly aware of, is not with the Triune God or the devils. It is the problem with the people. Christ did not come to be joined to all the people! This I affirm.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gene,

    Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the way Presbyterians and Baptists use their confessions. That may be so or may not be so.

    I already granted that dissent is sometimes permitted in a number of other cases. That though is not relevant since it leaves untouched what those Confessions in fact teach. If exceptions are made, then they are exceptions that prove the rule.

    Second, I don’t know of any widespread exceptions on the Filioque. Do you? I have asked for evidence of this a few times now and perhaps I missed it, but I haven’t seen any.

    You state that the issue is the worshipper and then ask if I mean elder, deacon or lay member. I mean any and all. I mean what the body may pen-ultimately oblige its members to accept, either personally or as what the body teaches, even if it permits dissent.

    As for the levels of obligation and possible dissent, this is really irrelevant to the question of whether the Reformed Confessions teach a non-biblical doctrine regarding the nature of God or not. Steve thinks that they do. Do you agree that the Filioque as taught in the Reformed Confessions and by representative Reformed theologians is not justifiable from Scripture alone or no?

    As for the Amyraldian and such other cases as you mention, do you believe these are comparable to the doctrine of God? And do you know any examples regarding the doctrine of the Filioque that you can bring to bear here? So is one bound to believe that part of the WCF and the LBC that teach the Filipoque or not? Are elders? Again, can you bring out some examples of this being so?

    ReplyDelete
  13. You state that the issue is the worshipper and then ask if I mean elder, deacon or lay member. I mean any and all. I mean what the body may pen-ultimately oblige its members to accept, either personally or as what the body teaches, even if it permits dissent....So is one bound to believe that part of the WCF and the LBC that teach the Filipoque or not? Are elders? Again, can you bring out some examples of this being so?

    Different churches have different requirements of their members. What is unclear about this? I can't answer your question any better than that. There is no "one size fits all" answer.

    That's also true of the eldership and diaconate.

    There are churches like John Piper's who, if I recall correctly, have a separate confession for the members, quite broad,and another for the office holders.

    Then there is the last Baptist church of which I was a member, that put an * next to required articles for members.

    Also,not every church uses the same confession. Some may use the First Baptist Confession. Others may use the 2nd or the BFM2k or others.

    The Presby's in my experience keep to the WCF, but they have different requirements for members than office-holders. However,since I'm not privy to what the local presbytery does, I can't tell you anything more. Hmmm,here's an idea: Ask a Presbyterian.

    As for the Amyraldian and such other cases as you mention, do you believe these are comparable to the doctrine of God?

    No, I believe they are actually higher order issues than whether or not the procession is double, single, or the proper view is "autotheotic." Why? Because the Bible gives more time to questions like justification, the role of grace, predestination & election, and the atonement than this particular issue. The Bible is more concerned with telling us how to be saved and some details about the mechanics involved, as it were,than the manner the Spirit proceeds from the Father and whether or not from the Son or whether or not the Three are autotheotic and how all of that works.

    I'll take the Bible's priorities, ergo God's, over yours and Perry's any day. In fact, you can do us all a favor and broadcast that far and wide. Please, quote me verbatim: The Bible's (and thus God's) priorities are more important to Gene than the opinions of Perry and Acolyte on the importance of the Filioque.

    Put it in bold letters.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NPMCCALLUM SAID:

    “It seems to me that any institution which engages in a wholesale re-interpreting of its foundational charters, and particularly one which trades clarity for ambiguity through encouraging ubiquitous private interpretation, has abandoned its raison d'être and has substituted in its place existence qua existence.”

    State a real world analogue.

    “It seems to me that the main contention here is really the basis for excommunication. Who is permitted to commune? As outlined by Steve, pretty much everyone (especially since one can profess the resurrection from the dead while holding a privite interpretation which believes ‘only spiritually’). Yet it is doctrine, and more specifically the private re-interpretation of the incarnation in the flesh of Christ as a "spiritual incarnation" (qua docetai), which the Scriptures themselves warn are anathema (and implicitly that to commune in such a state is to eat and drink damnation).”

    I see that McCallum missed his calling as a pulp fiction writer. Now he needs to spice it up with some gratuitous sex and violence for maximum effect.

    “Perry argues that private re-interpretation is duplicitous. I can't help but agree. Would I tell my wife I love her while privately meaning "when I am not in the throes of another woman"? Such is, in my mind, the scandal of private re-interpretation: it is the enemy of love. In privately re-interpreting a church's confession, they cease to be worship, but rather political manoeuvring. Anything which is the enemy of love is the enemy of God, because God is love.”

    Which is irrelevant to what I wrote. It’s ironic that someone who inveighs against duplicity likes to indulge himself in such redolent mendacity

    “There is one further troubling aspect, in my mind. When the ruler of a country dispenses with the clear intent of a constitution*, the country rapidly finds itself in tyrany.”

    Of course, that involves a social contract with elective representatives, not the unilateral obligation.

    “The same is true with regard to church confessions: denial of communion (or ordination) becomes arbitrary to the whim of the ruling party. Thus, when Dave and John both reject the virgin birth, only Dave's ministerial candidacy is rejected on these grounds (perhaps because John's dad is golf-buddies with the chair of the evaluation board?).”

    Which, once again, is irrelevant to what I actually wrote. McCallum is riding his hobbyhorse in the attic.

    “Any ruler (or oligarchy as the case may be) which is not bound (at least in some way) to the past has no basis to uphold any previous commitments.”

    Unconditional obeisance to the past is amoral.

    “In short, even if Steve's argument for re-interpretation (public or private) succeeds, I (personally) would never join such a church as I think it would be a threat to my salvation.”

    His salvation is more imperiled by membership in a church that rubberstamps sectarian tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Acolyte4236

    I am a Protestant in the Free Church of Scotland. I have recently forfeited my seminary training and benefits in my denomination over the filioque issue. I read and whole heartedly agree with Photius' Mystagogy. My denomination does not allow for any excpetions to the westminster confession, therefore I was forced to forfeit for conscience sake. I have asked this question to other orthodox apologists and I wanted to see what you would say. By logical consequence what arguments would you present to a person like me that denial of the filioque obligates me to go all the way into Eastern orthodoxy. Not historical reasons, philosophical arguments.

    ReplyDelete