The Eastern Orthodox are fixated on the heresy, as some view it, of double procession. That’s not because the Orthodox object to the principle of hypostatic procession. The difference, rather, is that the Eastern church traditionally affirms single procession whereas the Western church traditionally affirms double process. So both East and West operate with the same underlying principle or metaphysical model.
On the Eastern view, one person (the Father) is the source of two other persons (Son and Spirit).
On the Latin view, two persons (Father & Son) are the source of one other person (the Spirit).
There are further debates on whether the Father originates the nature or the person the Son and the Spirit.
In any case, both positions represent modifications of the same basic paradigm.
Eastern Orthodox theologians regard God the Father as the source of origin or mode of origin or even the cause of the Son and the Spirit.
Now, I myself don’t affirm double procession. But, by the same token, I don’t affirm single procession either.
Both positions share common flaws. Both get carried a way with metaphors. And both apply casual categories to the persons of the Godhead.
So the fact that I happen to agree with the Eastern Orthodox in my rejection of double procession doesn’t mean I agree with their alternative. To the contrary, I think both positions are equally mistaken. Both positions represent variants of the same flawed hermeneutic, underwritten by the same flawed metaphysics. Since I reject the underlying model, which both of them modify in different directions, I have no more use for the Orthodox theology than Latin theology at this juncture.
I think Calvin made a significant midcourse correction with his insight on the autotheistic character of the Trinitarian persons, and I agree with subsequent Reformed theologians like Warfield, Frame, and Helm who’ve been developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of Calvin’s corrective.
If that incurs the disapproval of Perry Robinson, then I guess I’ll have to devise a coping strategy to deal with my inconsolable grief.
I must add to this that I affirm this as well.
ReplyDeleteI will further add for the Roman Catholic readers that this view was not considered heterodox in Calvin's day by his Catholic opponents, nor have subsequent Reformed theologians declared it heterodox.
Ergo, Steve and I are well within the bounds of our Reformed heritage, and therein lies the reason we can scruple with those who would interpret the WCF and LBC2 differently.
Our scrupling does not mean we are "lying" to other worshippers. In fact, within Baptist tradition, if Acolyte is at all interested, there are even those who affirm single procession while holding to the LBC or a version thereof; again,precisely because the Filioque isn't an OCD problem for us. It's just not that important for us. If you have a problem with that, then in the words of William Shatner,"Get a life." I mean, Dude, have you ever kissed a girl?
Btw, it has been a traditional position of RC polemicists that the whole "Filioque" question was originally just a shibboleth that the Byzantines made up to get a theological excuse to reject Rome's authority and Western influence in general.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1910 Catholic Encylopedia:
"Once he had refused to consent to his deposition, Pope Nicholas I was bound to uphold him and to condemn Photius, who was an outright usurper. Photius was clever enough to see that a rupture with Rome on this point would not satisfy even the Greeks, so he cast about for another issue. He took, one by one, the many causes for separation that had been in the air for centuries and united them into a body of doctrine; then, confident in his learning and prestige, he decided to give battle. The insertion of the "Filioque" clause in the Creed, the procession of the Holy Ghost ab utroque, etc., were so many reasons which were bound to have their effect upon the leading minds when the question of the separation came up. Then again the popes' acknowledgment of the Frankish kings as Emperors of the West was bound to carry weight in Byzantine political circles."
"During the entire tenth century, and the first part of the eleventh, relations between the Roman and the Greek Churches were excellent. There were, no doubt, occasional difficulties, always unavoidable in societies different in customs, speech, and civilization, but we may almost go so far as to say that the union between the Churches was as deep and sincere as it was during the first three centuries of Christianity. Michael Cærularius, however, desired a schism for no other reason, apparently, than to satisfy his pride, and in 1054 he succeeded in making one at the very time when everything seemed to promise a lasting peace. For this purpose he brought forward, besides the theological reasons stated by Photius, many others that Photius had neglected or merely hinted at, and which were judged particularly fitted to catch the popular fancy."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm
Or like modern RC apologist Mark Bonocore states it:
"I would strongly yet respectfully suggest that this is the real motivating cause behind the zealous Eastern Orthodox rejection of Filioque –a quasi-"nationalistic" reaction to something that is, or at least perceived to be, a threat to the ancient and venerable Byzantine tradition. Such was the motivating instinct of the Eastern bishops at Blachernae, and of Mark of Ephesus and the other Byzantines who rejected the union of Ferrara-Florence. And it is the motivating instinct that governs the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, which fears that it will ‘loose itself’ (its own identity) if it indulges any charitable comprise with the West. All canonical and theological arguments against Filioque merely serve to rationalize, and attempt to justify, what is essentially a cultural "gut reaction" against that which is seen as alien to Byzantine heritage. And, because Byzantine heritage (i.e., the civilized, Christian heritage of true Roman Empire) is presumed to be one and the same thing as Apostolic Christianity, anything that is alien to it ‘must be wrong.’"
http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
I am not certain of this, but, nevertheless and more so, I will stand with the Apostle Paul's tradition, and say, with him these two things which are really one thing said two different ways, is and are:::>
ReplyDelete2Co 9:15 Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
and
Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
Well, what can I add to his tradition about the Father and the Holy Spirit if he writes that of Christ and His gifts and riches, that is, His gift is inexpressible and His riches are unsearchable?
My guess is, if these things are true in Paul for Christ and His gifts, seeing I believe with all my being in the Triune God, like Paul, that also and equally, the gifts and riches of God the Father and the gifts and riches of the Holy Spirit are inexpressible and unsearchable!
I have found it fascinating, though, to see there are those here who do believe in single and double procession!
Steve wrote: “So both East and West operate with the same underlying principle or metaphysical model.”
ReplyDeleteActually this is false. It is false for a few reasons. First, generation on the Latin model is applied to both Son and Spirit, of which begotten and spiration are types. This is not so on the Orthodox model where each is sui generis.
Second, its not so since on the Latin (Catholic and Protestant) the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. This is not so on the Orthodox model.
Third, the Latin model, (Catholic and Protestant) assume God is self subsisting being, which the Orthodox deny since God is huper ousia.
If Calvin made a correction, then its strange that Calvin teaches the Filioque or so it seems to me. One isn’t really relevant to the other here and so this is more hand waving to get away from the admission that the Reformed Confessions teach a false view of the Trinity, relations of opposition, Filioque and all.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteIt may be true that both you and Steve are well within the Reformed tradition regarding the persons of the Trinity being all autotheos, but have you given any reason to think that you are regarding the Filioque? As for the former, this is easily verifiable in say reading Warfield on Calvin’s Trinitarianism or Muller’s works, but I haven’t seen any reason to think that the two case here are comparable. Can you give some evidence to think that what is true on the case of authotheos is also true in the case of the Filioque?
Second, the issue is not whether you are legitimately able to dissent from the WCF or the LBC. The issue is whether those documents teach an extra-biblical doctrine about the nature of God in the doctrine of the Filioque or not. Steve thinks that it does, but do you? It seems to me that the admission it is extra-biblical implies that the claim that all Reformed Confessional doctrines are justifiable by Scripture alone is false.
The Filioque isn’t an OCD for the Orthodox either, but perhaps the right teaching regarding the doctrine of God is. The Filioque is one of many errors in that doctrinal field.
But even if it were an obsession, that is quite irrelevant as to whether it is a biblical doctrine or not and whether the Reformed teach unbiblical doctrines about God or not for the simple reason that someone without OCD could state the objection. As such this seems to amount to an ad hominem.
Noting that it is not important for you may reflect and inform of us your priorities or personal pscyhology, but it doesn’t tell us whether the Reformed are consistent in teaching the Filioque via their Confessions and maintaining Sola Scriptura.
As for having a life and kissing girls, I believe I’ve done my fair share. I have three kids so I think I have done a bit more than kiss my wife.
In any case, I must say that it’s a bit of special pleading to recommend people think about something else other than Reformed false doctrines about God when Steve and yourself do exactly that with Arminians, Open Theists and others.
Viisaus
ReplyDeleteThis is really irrelevant since the question is whether it is consistent with Sola Scriptura. If it isn’t as Steve admits then whatever reasons the Catholic encyclopedia gives for the Orthodox rejection are ad hominem and irrelevant.
Second, Photius was vindicated by a council agreed to by both east and west in 879-880.
Moreover, the material here on Michael Caerularius has been completely overturned by modern scholarship both Catholic and Orthodox. Michael just wasn’t the kind of scheming knave that Frankish propagandists made him out to be.
As for Mark Bonocore, you think he is a fair and dispassionate source on this issue or Protestantism? I doubt that.
His remarks here amount to ad hominem. If Mark of Ephesus was motivated by nationalistic instinct, then I suppose we could equally say the same of the Frankish representaties. Would could also say much worse like those of Bessarian who went over to the other side. All of that gold and promised ecclesiastical office might have something to do with it. One ad hominem deserves another I suppose.
As for all of his other remarks about arguments against the Filioque, they are not relevant here since the concern is what Scripture alone teaches. Moreover, one could say the same about Rome, that it fears not having complete control and so it must defend the filioque rather than give it up out of “charity.” Mark no doubt will appeal to its dogmatic status and so it is a matter of truth, but somehow he isn’t willing to rescind ad homs and give the Orthodox the same “charitable” ground of concern. How odd.
As for “Byzantine” the term is a Frankish slur. There never was such a thing as the Byzantine Empire. It was the Roman empire.
So if you’re Protestant, do you think the doctrine of the Filioque as taught by Reformed Confessions is justifiable on the grounds of Scripture alone or no?
the issue is not whether you are legitimately able to dissent from the WCF or the LBC
ReplyDeleteHmmm,let's put that to the test:
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?
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? And is the issue whether one is bound by that intent or whether the Confessions teach a doctrine which is not scripturally justifiable?
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. This seems like you are advocating a kind of confessional equivocation and intentional duplicity. 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'll stop there, because that's enough on it's own. You have the temerity to sit at your keyboard and all but accuse us of outright lies and deceit and then say that this isn't an issue?
Well, I'll do ohe better...You,sir,are now guilty of lies and deceit. You sit there and accuse us falsely and then sit there and tell ballfaced lies yourself.
Steve thinks that it does, but do you? It seems to me that the admission it is extra-biblical implies that the claim that all Reformed Confessional doctrines are justifiable by Scripture alone is false.
It must burn for you. You're trying to score some debate points,but the problem you're really having, IMO, is that this is only an issue if strict subscription is true, but, as we've already answered, that's not the case. Further, somebody like Turretinfan, whose views on this I do not know, and who may well hold to the Filioque may give a different answer.
I laugh at you, ha.
The Filioque isn’t an OCD for the Orthodox either, but perhaps the right teaching regarding the doctrine of God is.
A. If the Latin view is false and the Eastern view is true, and the Easterns regard for right teaching abt. Theology Proper is OCD, then the Filioque would be an OCD issue because of that fact,would it not?
As such this seems to amount to an ad hominem.
Which you very nicely prove to be accurate if we follow the logical outcome of your own reasoning. Thanks for being such a willing foil.
In any case, I must say that it’s a bit of special pleading to recommend people think about something else other than Reformed false doctrines about God when Steve and yourself do exactly that with Arminians, Open Theists and others.
That would be true only if we embued this issue with the importance of, let's say, the Five Points of Calvinism but in the Baptist Tradition,th Filioque just isn't that important. I'd think the same true of the Presbys. Perhaps TF can enlighten us if he drops in here.
Let's drop the facade, for that's what it is. You're trying to hang us on the horns of a dilemma. We all know it,so let's just put it out there.
1. If this doctrine is false, we should organize a mass protest...if not, we're not good Protestants.
2. If it lacks biblical support, that's a problem for our rule of faith, for we have to rely on "tradition" (however defined).
Either way we go, we lose. What a transparent ploy....and yet, you sit there and accuse us of duplicity.
Steve Hays: "Now, I myself don’t affirm double procession. But, by the same token, I don’t affirm single procession either.
ReplyDeleteBoth positions share common flaws."
Heh. It's like Protestants returning the favor of saying "A pox on both your houses!" to EO's who say the same thing about RC's and Prots.
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete“Actually this is false.”
Actually this is true.
“Actually this is false. It is false for a few reasons. First, generation on the Latin model is applied to both Son and Spirit, of which begotten and spiration are types. This is not so on the Orthodox model where each is sui generis. Second, its not so since on the Latin (Catholic and Protestant) the persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. This is not so on the Orthodox model. Third, the Latin model, (Catholic and Protestant) assume God is self subsisting being, which the Orthodox deny since God is huper ousia.”
That’s just a case of tweaking the same basic paradigm. Since you seem unable to recognize the paradigm, here it is:
One divine person originates another divine person.
Both the Greek church and the Latin church operate within that framework. Their respective positions represent minor variants on the same chassis. Thanks for proving my point.
“If Calvin made a correction, then its strange that Calvin teaches the Filioque or so it seems to me.”
Let’s compare your pseudoresponse with what I actually said. I said:
“I think Calvin made a significant midcourse correction with his insight on the autotheistic character of the Trinitarian persons, and I agree with subsequent Reformed theologians like Warfield, Frame, and Helm who’ve been developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of Calvin’s corrective.”
Notice my follow-up statement about other Reformed theologians developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of his corrective. Didn’t you read that far? Or is this another memory lapse on your part?
By implication, Calvinism didn’t carry it through in a thoroughgoing fashion. But he redirected the discussion (as in “midcourse correction”). Others have followed his lead, and taken it a step further.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteFirst notice that most of my remarks that you cite are questions, not accusations. I am trying to make sure I map Steve’s thought. I am permitting clarification. I am allowing him to define his position.
Second, it seemed to me at the time that Steve was talking about recommending that individuals just substitute on meaning for the other in a “private” way, where that term seemed to carry the connotation of, in their own head, without informing the duly appointed church authorities. I wasn’t the only one who took something like that to be what Steve was saying. For the sake of the discussion, I’ll concede that that is not what he had in mind. Misunderstanding and communication happens sometimes.
That said, Steve was arguing that this should be done for the Creed for those who known to the church authorities dissent when they recite it. Fine, but that supports the claim that the false doctrine is still taught by the body at large and in the Confession.
Moreover, Steve argued that the Creed was not used for membership and ordination. It didn’t obligate its users to the original intent in a unilateral way. I disagree, but I’ll let that go. Then Steve argued that the Creed wasn’t “like a contract.” Well the Confessions are like a contract and they are lower authoritative documents that the church authorities use for membership and ordination. That was my experience with the OPC and the REC. Perhaps this is not the case with say the PCA or the Dutch bodies, but that was never my experience. This is why I pretty much from the get-go referred to Reformed teaching as found in the Confessions.
Just because I addressed the attempt to dodge the problem by appealing to dissent doesn’t imply that the primary issue wasn’t the inconsistency in the Confessions. Nothing that I wrote that you cited excludes that being the primary issue. It really doesn’t matter if your body or any other practices strict subscriptionism or not since your body Confesses to this day in its teaching documents a false doctrine about the Trinity or rather a false Trinitarianism.
Now I’ve asked you a few times now if you agree with the Filioque doctrine or not and I haven’t gotten a response from you. But it seems as if you do. Notice your comments just last year,
“1. Generation is a sexual metaphor.2. So why would we assume that the procession of the Spirit is single and not double? Do children not spirate from 2 parents, or only one? The way I see it, the most obvious image of the Trinity in Scripture is the nuclear family. The Father embodies paternity, a quality completely in line with patristic theology. This would fit God's ideal for all human fathers. The Son embodies filiation. Such would apply to women who are mothers. From both parents, a child spirates. Ergo, from Them Both, the Spirit spirates. And yet all three persons in the single family are each persons unto themselves...within the Trinity "authotheos." http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/trinitarianism.html
Maybe you have an exegetical basis for this belief or you have changed your mind since last year.
Gene (cont.)
ReplyDeleteAs for temerity, when you and Steve fairly routinely insult me, belittle me and call me a liar in all sorts of ways, I am not sure that you have properly placed the temerity in question. More to the point, I put the remarks as questions asking Steve to clarify his position. These weren’t accusations as yours and Steve’s have been with respect to me. So even if I did outright accuse you of lying, here’s a newsflash, perhaps if you didn’t insult people so often and freely and call them liars and infer that a mistake implies deceit or mental incompetence on practically every occasion that you can, you might not get called a liar in return.
So the fact that the Filioque is a false doctrine taught by your Confessions is only a problem if strict subscription is true? Perhaps the fact that it is a false doctrine taught by your confessions is a problem all by itself is a problem. I also notice that your remarks evade my direct question to you as to whether you profess the doctrine of the Filioque or not. If you profess it, then strict subscription or not, it’s a problem for you.
You reference Turretinfan, so let’s bring him in here and see what he thinks. I know that Francis Turretin adhered to the Filioque.
You laugh at me? Can we bring this up to the level of the argument, please?
As for the OCD stuff, now I am not at all clear as to what you mean, so could you please clarify your remarks below?
“A. If the Latin view is false and the Eastern view is true, and the Easterns regard for right teaching abt. Theology Proper is OCD, then the Filioque would be an OCD issue because of that fact,would it not?”
Actually my hoddy horse lies elsewhere. The Filioque isn’t something I am obsessed with. It is a historical and theological weight point of difference, but my main area of concern lies elsewhere. That said, using the Filioque as a demonstration that Calvinism as historically taught in its Confessions is inconsistent and professes a false view of the Trinity seems quite effective. There are other doctrines I can pick out in this area such as the notion of the divine persons as relations and the persons as distinguished by relations of opposition, simplicity and such. Don’t worry, there’s more to come! But so far, its been quite satisfying having Steve finally admit that his church professes a false doctrine regarding the Trinity.
Gene (Cont.)
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I must say that it’s a bit of special pleading to recommend people think about something else other than Reformed false doctrines about God when Steve and yourself do exactly that with Arminians, Open Theists and others.
“That would be true only if we embued this issue with the importance of, let's say, the Five Points of Calvinism but in the Baptist Tradition,th Filioque just isn't that important. I'd think the same true of the Presbys. Perhaps TF can enlighten us if he drops in here. “
I see, so the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t that important. Got it. Perhaps to further motivate your point you could show us how you distinguish the persons without the filioque and relations of opposition as stated in the LBC and taught by Reformed theologians?
“Let's drop the facade, for that's what it is. You're trying to hang us on the horns of a dilemma. We all know it,so let's just put it out there.”
I don’t think I proposed any façade about trying to hang you on the horns of a dilemma. I think I’ve been up front about that from the get-go.
“1. If this doctrine is false, we should organize a mass protest...if not, we're not good Protestants.”
I didn’t say a mass protest, but you could go to the requisite legislative meetings and propose that the Confession should be amended. Here your remarks blow things out of proportion to evade your responsibility which makes the charge of special pleading all the more severe.
“2. If it lacks biblical support, that's a problem for our rule of faith, for we have to rely on "tradition" (however defined). Either way we go, we lose. What a transparent ploy....and yet, you sit there and accuse us of duplicity.”
I am not sure if you are objecting to the transparency of the dilemma I’ve proposed or to its effectiveness. If the former, should I propose obscuring dilemmas? If the latter, can you show exactly where my strategy fails? So far it seems to be working just fine in getting Steve to admit one horn, namely that his Confession professes a false view of the Trinity from which he has to dissent.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteActually its false.
The paradigm as you gloss it also would include Protestantism. Second, the relative terms mean substantially different things between models. You’d need to show that they carry the same meaning between both, which you haven’t and can’t. This is why I pointed out that procession in Latin theology applies to both Son and Spirit but not in Orthodox theology. So since you seem unable to recognize the point, here it is again.
Latin model-One person acts to generate two others where generation can be applied to both subsequent others.
Orthodox model-One person acts to generate another person and the first person processes a third person.
There is no common notion of generation between the two on the Orthodox model. Your usage of “originates” presupposes the Latin usage of procedit. Thanks for proving my point.
“Let’s compare your pseudoresponse with what I actually said. I said:
“I think Calvin made a significant midcourse correction with his insight on the autotheistic character of the Trinitarian persons, and I agree with subsequent Reformed theologians like Warfield, Frame, and Helm who’ve been developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of Calvin’s corrective.”
“Notice my follow-up statement about other Reformed theologians developing a more thoroughgoing formulation of his corrective. Didn’t you read that far? Or is this another memory lapse on your part?”
By implication, Calvinism didn’t carry it through in a thoroughgoing fashion. But he redirected the discussion (as in “midcourse correction”). Others have followed his lead, and taken it a step further.”
First, it is interesting that you have to appeal doctrinal development rather than straight up exegesis. Second, are you suggesting that viewing the divine persons as each autotheos implies a denial of the FIlioque? If so, then its an implication you have yet to present. If so, its an implication that not only Calvin, but plenty of past and present Reformed theologians have missed. That’s possible, but without a demonstration of how we get from the ascription of autotheos to a denial of the Filioque it seems to be merely an assertion.
As for your insults, again it strikes me that you simply can’t write without insulting others. Writing,
“Didn’t you read that far? Or is this another memory lapse on your part?”
Was that complex quesitonesque remark really necessary? Do you think this advances your argument in some way? Do you prefer to be spoken to in an insulting manner rather than a civil and respectful way?
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete“The paradigm as you gloss it also would include Protestantism.”
So what? Protestant theology is not above correction. The difference is that Catholic/Orthodox traditions involve irreformable errors, whereas residual errors in Protestant theology are reformable.
“Second, the relative terms mean substantially different things between models. You’d need to show that they carry the same meaning between both, which you haven’t and can’t.”
Except that I can, and do so quite easily (see below).
“Latin model-One person acts to generate two others where generation can be applied to both subsequent others. Orthodox model-One person acts to generate another person and the first person processes a third person. There is no common notion of generation between the two on the Orthodox model. Your usage of ‘originates’ presupposes the Latin usage of procedit.”
Wrong. I’ve used several different synonyms. What both models have in common is the generic principle that one person is the source or cause of another person. Terms like ‘generation’ and ‘procession’ are metaphorical ways to gloss or narrow the generic notion of production, causality or source of origin.
And “originate” doesn’t presuppose the Latin “procedit.” Just study the range of usage.
“First, it is interesting that you have to appeal doctrinal development rather than straight up exegesis.”
i) That’s because we’re discussing historical theology rather than exegetical theology. Creeds and confessions. So, yes, historical theology is subject to development.
ii) And I didn’t “appeal” to doctrinal development to justify said development, now did I? You’re the one who wants to talk about historical Reformed theology in reference to the filioque. So, given how you cast the terms of the debate, then it’s relevant to compare past and present views on the filioque. Try to follow your own argument.
iii) Moreover, it’s quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development to converge on exegesis. Indeed, there’s nothing surprising or shocking about the idea that, as time goes on, Protestant theology refines its theological formulations to prune away any residual, unscriptural traditions which it may have inherited from the ancient or medieval church.
You know that, but pretend not to so that you can act surprised and scandalized at the fact.
“If so, then its an implication you have yet to present. If so, its an implication that not only Calvin, but plenty of past and present Reformed theologians have missed. That’s possible, but without a demonstration of how we get from the ascription of autotheos to a denial of the Filioque it seems to be merely an assertion.”
i) I don’t know what modern and/or contemporary Reformed theologians you have read. And there doesn’t need to be consensus on the issue to prove my point since I didn’t claim consensus. One rarely has consensus on anything in theology, as you yourself recently admitted.
ii) Moreover, since you yourself deny the filioque, why do you think it’s incumbent on me to disprove it?
iii) I don’t have to make a case one way or the other. That isn’t my cause in life. I’m simply responding to you. That doesn’t mean you set the agenda.
“As for your insults, again it strikes me that you simply can’t write without insulting others.”
No. It depends on the conduct of the disputant.
“Do you think this advances your argument in some way?”
You have no interest in advancing the argument. Your only interest is to advance your agenda.
So even though I specifically and explicitly qualified my statement, your comment ignored my qualifications so that you could play to the galleries.
“Do you prefer to be spoken to in an insulting manner rather than a civil and respectful way?”
You’re not a respectful opponent. You’re only looking for a gotcha moment.
This is off topic, but what with it being the Christmas season and all, I was hoping Steve could provide some further insight into the following quote he made in a different blog post:
ReplyDelete"If the Son of God is timeless, then there was never a time when he was discarnate. And yet the Incarnation can still be effected in time, having a point of origin in time." (Time & Eternity, 4/30/06)
Would you mind explaining more indepth what you mean by "there was never a time when he [the Son of God] was disincarnate"?
Thanks.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“So what? Protestant theology is not above correction. The difference is that Catholic/Orthodox traditions involve irreformable errors, whereas residual errors in Protestant theology are reformable.”
The point was that it wasn’t then specific to Rome or the Orthodox. So it isn’t a matter of whether Protestant theology is reformable or not. As far as that goes, reforming doesn’t imply correcting the theology. Its akin to Darwinists who conflate evolution with progress.
“Second, the relative terms mean substantially different things between models. You’d need to show that they carry the same meaning between both, which you haven’t and can’t.”
Except that I can, and do so quite easily (see below).
“Latin model-One person acts to generate two others where generation can be applied to both subsequent others. Orthodox model-One person acts to generate another person and the first person processes a third person. There is no common notion of generation between the two on the Orthodox model. Your usage of ‘originates’ presupposes the Latin usage of procedit.”
“Wrong. I’ve used several different synonyms. What both models have in common is the generic principle that one person is the source or cause of another person. Terms like ‘generation’ and ‘procession’ are metaphorical ways to gloss or narrow the generic notion of production, causality or source of origin.”
If you’ve used several synonyms then that is exactly my point. They aren’t synonymous between the two systems. And yes the usage of originate does presuppose the Latin since you propose that it can be used of both Son and Spirit to gloss both models. This presupposes the Latin theological model and so its question begging. There is no generic notion of causality to be had here.
“i) That’s because we’re discussing historical theology rather than exegetical theology. Creeds and confessions. So, yes, historical theology is subject to development.”
So let’s suppose I grant this, but it will be still be the case that the development can only be justified on exegetical grounds at the end of the day. So why not skip the history lesion and just argue exegetically that taking each of the persons as autotheos implies a denial of the Filioque?
Steve, (cont.)
ReplyDelete“ii) And I didn’t “appeal” to doctrinal development to justify said development, now did I? You’re the one who wants to talk about historical Reformed theology in reference to the filioque. So, given how you cast the terms of the debate, then it’s relevant to compare past and present views on the filioque. Try to follow your own argument.”
Try not to be so rude. You seem to implicitly appeal to a line of doctrinal development. It is quite relevant to compare past and present views on the Filioque, but the status is still pretty much the same. It is still a confessional doctrine with a few academic exceptions that you’ve noted. That isn’t particularly helpful for your case.
“iii) Moreover, it’s quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development to converge on exegesis. Indeed, there’s nothing surprising or shocking about the idea that, as time goes on, Protestant theology refines its theological formulations to prune away any residual, unscriptural traditions which it may have inherited from the ancient or medieval church.”
Sure, its possible, but its also quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development not to converge on exegesis, which is why I asked for an exegetical basis. You could just cut to the chase, but you didn’t.
And given that the Protestant bodies are fallible, its quite possible that the “refining process” is actually an apostasy process. If Rome can fall away through a process of “development” it shouldn’t be shocking to you that its quite possible to go in the other direction. So your own remarks seem applicable here. “You know that, but pretend not to so that you can act surprised and scandalized at the fact.”
As for pruning away residual unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take the Filioque. Its been five hundred years and no pruning from the Confessions. Moreover when I ask you or others what you’re doing about it, you just pass the buck with remarks to the effect that you’re not an elder or I am asking for some kind of mass protest, indicating how recalcitrant and incorrigible Protestants are in their tradition. Moreover, we could add doctrines like that the persons are relations and distinguished by relations of opposition. No pruning there. And when people usually challenge the confessions and seek to alter them, they get booted. So are you going to do any pruning? I don’t think so.
“If so, then its an implication you have yet to present. If so, its an implication that not only Calvin, but plenty of past and present Reformed theologians have missed. That’s possible, but without a demonstration of how we get from the ascription of autotheos to a denial of the Filioque it seems to be merely an assertion.”
“i) I don’t know what modern and/or contemporary Reformed theologians you have read. And there doesn’t need to be consensus on the issue to prove my point since I didn’t claim consensus. One rarely has consensus on anything in theology, as you yourself recently admitted.”
Steve, cont.
ReplyDeleteShall I provide you with a bibliography? I didn’t argue that you needed consensus but on any given issues there is usually in a given tradition a small number of theologians that dissent. They then have their followers over time, and often it never amounts to anything more than a handful of dissenters whereas the tradition as a whole remains unchanged. The presence of dissenters in that case doesn’t really support the idea of a conceptual advance over time, and without a demonstration, that seems to be what we have here. As or consensus I mean that within a certain context and under certain conditions so to say that I agree with you on that point turns on an equivocation on your part.
“ii) Moreover, since you yourself deny the filioque, why do you think it’s incumbent on me to disprove it?”
So you are saying that it isn’t incumbent upon you to disprove and argue against doctrines professed by other Christians that you belief are unscriptural? I took a fair amount of what you do here to be just that. I would think that doing so in your own backyard would be even more paramount, but given your dodginess and apparent recalcitrance to do so I don’t think it is for you and hence the charge of special pleading on that score.
“iii) I don’t have to make a case one way or the other. That isn’t my cause in life. I’m simply responding to you. That doesn’t mean you set the agenda.”
If I don’t set the agenda then its rather strange now that you’ve devoted a fair number of successive blog posts to the “Perry and Steve show” and to the topic I picked out. Thanks. In fact, your oldest post on the Filioque by your own admission was due to my pointing out the problem to you back in ’06 where you wouldn’t say clearly one way or another whether it was scriptural or not. It took me the better part of two years to pull that admission out of you. It’s been a labor of love.
If you don’t have to make a case one way or the other, then I suppose you think that members of the priesthood of all believers is somehow stratified. What was it you wrote before that you didn’t believe in a paternalistic ecclesiology where some get to play the grown ups and some the children? Well, it seems clear you bear some duty to argue against it.
“As for your insults, again it strikes me that you simply can’t write without insulting others.”
“No. It depends on the conduct of the disputant.”
Generally, I try to refrain from rhetoric or insults. Sometimes I lose my temper, but I try to focus on the arguments in question. Your pattern of dealing with people seems fairly consistent in being demeaning, belittling and insulting.
“You have no interest in advancing the argument. Your only interest is to advance your agenda.”
Actually this is mind reading. And its an ad hominem. Even if true, it is irrelevant to the arguments I do put forward, to which your insults are unnecessary and irrelevant. This is but another instance. Perhaps its true that my only interest is to advance my agenda, but that says nothing as to whether my arguments are good ones or not or whether my “agenda” is a bad one. And even if true, I am advancing my “agenda” through the arguments.
“So even though I specifically and explicitly qualified my statement, your comment ignored my qualifications so that you could play to the galleries.”
ReplyDeleteHere I am not clear on what you are referring to so please point it out.
“You’re not a respectful opponent. You’re only looking for a gotcha moment.”
I certainly try to be a respectful opponent. I don’t try to insult you or to be rude. I try to give you the opportunity to expand and clarify your views and remarks. Yet you do not respond in turn.
Perhaps I am looking for a gotcha moment. If I am, I got that back in August or so. This, well this is the gift that keeps on giving, especially since you keep giving me the opportunity to tease out the implications from the confessional false doctrine even more. Thanks. But even if true, it is not as if you don’t write for that “gotcha” moment, so lets be honest Steve. You play the “gotcha” game all the time. You are hardly white as snow here.
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete“There is no generic notion of causality to be had here.”
i) Your distinction between procession and generation does nothing to salvage your argument since these are hairsplitting attempts to distinguish between different *kinds* of production, causation or origination (pick your synonym).
ii) Moreover, the fact that you use different *words* doesn’t amount to a *conceptual* difference. It’s just a rhetorical disguise.
“Sure, its possible, but its also quite possible for Protestant doctrinal development not to converge on exegesis, which is why I asked for an exegetical basis.”
I don’t have to provide an exegetical basis for something I’m not defending in the first place.
This is the silly game you play. You pretend that you’re maneuvering your opponent into a “shocking” admission. Then, when he makes the “shocking” admission, you claim victory.
But I was never playing by your rules in the first place. You’re just using other people as a mirror to see your own reflection.
“And given that the Protestant bodies are fallible, its quite possible that the “refining process” is actually an apostasy process.”
Yes, it’s possible for Protestant denominations to commit apostasy. Another one of the truisms you repackage as if that’s a shocking admission.
And the Orthodox church is hardly exempt from the same process. Indeed, it’s pretty far down the downward spiral.
God saves people, not denominations.
“As for pruning away residual unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take the Filioque. Its been five hundred years and no pruning from the Confessions.”
As for pruning away *central* unscriptural traditions which they inherited from the ancient or medieval church, lets take iconolatry. It’s been twelve hundred years since 2nd Nicea, and no pruning from the Orthodox gardener.
What’s worse, there’s not even progress in that direction.
“Moreover when I ask you or others what you’re doing about it, you just pass the buck with remarks to the effect that you’re not an elder…”
This is your last-ditch demagoguery, which you keep harping on. It’s not a principled argument.
Rather, it’s just an ad hominem attack, a veiled charge of hypocrisy–despite the fact that you fake adhorrence at ad hominem attacks.
It also reflects a your deficient grasp of ethics and ecclesiology alike.
i) Every prima facie obligation isn’t equally obligatory. There are more prima facie duties than it’s humanly possible for an individual to discharge. So we have to prioritize. In case of conflict, higher duties supersede lower obligations.
ii) Apropos (i), there’s a distinction between individual duties and corporate duties.
iii) Apropos (ii), the church has many different members. They don’t have interchangeable obligations (e.g. 1 Cor 12).
“I didn’t argue that you needed consensus but on any given issues there is usually in a given tradition a small number of theologians that dissent. They then have their followers over time, and often it never amounts to anything more than a handful of dissenters whereas the tradition as a whole remains unchanged.”
ReplyDeleteI’m not talking about Hans Küng style dissenters. I’m talking about mainstream diversity among representative theologians.
“So you are saying that it isn’t incumbent upon you to disprove and argue against doctrines professed by other Christians that you belief are unscriptural?”
I guess I need to explain the obvious to you. By definition, someone who identifies with one theological tradition finds far less to object to in his own tradition than alternative traditions. By definition, a Calvinist will have far less (if anything) to criticize in Reformed theology than others traditions which are opposed to Reformed theology in one respect or another.
So you’re trying to trump up an absurd dilemma. If, on the one hand, a Calvinist is in lockstep with every jot and tittle of, say, the Westminster Confession, then you’ll accuse him of being a blind partisan. If, on the other hand, a Calvinist expresses any whiff of disagreement, then you act as though he’s leading a double life.
So you’re not attempting to debate in good faith. Rather, it’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition.
“I would think that doing so in your own backyard would be even more paramount.”
In the nature of the case, I’m pretty satisfied with my own backyard. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be my own backyard. If I wasn’t fairly content with my theological backyard, I’d adopt a theological tradition with a more agreeable backyard. Thanks for the tautology.
“But given your dodginess and apparent recalcitrance to do so...”
You’re just frustrated because I refuse to step into your silly little trap.
“If you don’t have to make a case one way or the other, then I suppose you think that members of the priesthood of all believers is somehow stratified.”
Doesn’t have to be stratified for different believers to have different duties according to their time and talents.
“Your pattern of dealing with people seems fairly consistent in being demeaning, belittling and insulting.”
Due to the kind of people I generally have to deal with.
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteNormally 'eternal procession' is used to explain how the Trinity is not tri-theism. Without procession, how do you avoid tri-theism?
Also, I seriously doublt Calvin would disagree with the traditional views on the Trinity.
God be with you,
Dan
subscribing
ReplyDelete