tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post9036017650021942502..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Why I (still) confess the filioqueBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-15607404609985779382010-08-29T21:40:01.340-04:002010-08-29T21:40:01.340-04:00"... even today the East still regards this F..."... even today the East still regards this Filioque as a falsification of the old ecumenical creed and as clear heresy. However, similarly, to the present day those Catholic and Protetsant dogmatic theologians of the West who attempt to make what is claimed to be the central dogma of Christianity credible to their contemporaries with every possible modernization and new argument (usually in vain) hardly seem to be aware that they are interpreting the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit no so much in the light of the New Testament as in the light of Augustine" [HANS KUNG, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: A SHORT HISTORY. New York: Modern Library, 2001; p. 51.]. In Erie PA USA Scott R. HarringtonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-991911367371591092010-08-29T21:24:02.505-04:002010-08-29T21:24:02.505-04:00To fail to read the great work of Christian theolo...To fail to read the great work of Christian theology, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" is to fail to understand the Filioque controversy. To fail to understand John 15:26 is to fail to understand why the Filioque is heretical; Christ says it is heretical, because He says the "Spirit proceeds from the Father" alone. See: Joseph P. Farrell, trans. St. Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. God bless all of you. In Erie PA USA Scott R. HarringtonScott R. Harringtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-20765724024654240392010-03-06T00:42:20.192-05:002010-03-06T00:42:20.192-05:00What a great blog conversation! There seems to be...What a great blog conversation! There seems to be two main issues mixed together here...<br /><br />1. How does the inclusion/exclusion of the filoque clause affect our understanding of the 'nature' of God (for want of a better term)?<br /><br />2. Was it okay to change the only truly 'ecumenical' creed in history, regardless of how much our theological understanding has developed?<br /><br />For me, the Nicene Creed is a reminder of the attempt of the early church to articulate what the church confesses in common, given the understanding at the time. I doubt those who formed it expected us to be debating it 1600 years later, in much the same way Paul didn't really have us in mind when writing the letters!<br /><br />When I say the Nicene Creed, my understanding of the Trinity is not limited to the words on the page (as if we can somehow capture God with words anyway!). The inclusion/exclusion of the filoque does not 'lock in' any particular theological understanding or position. Rather, it is a reminder for me of what happens when the church works together in affirming their faith in our awesome and mysterious God.<br /><br />I wonder what legacy can be left by the Body of Christ today... what truly ecumenical words and actions can be done today, that will be discussed (and blogged?) by the faithful of tomorrow?Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04236901329513731586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-31157750903745336972009-11-18T09:43:10.812-05:002009-11-18T09:43:10.812-05:00I find that helpful. Not being an academic, much ...I find that helpful. Not being an academic, much of what's written above loses me, but it seems to me there's a fourth 'person' involved in the scene: namely, me/us the subjective perceiver/s. I've long been left quite cold by talk of 'essence' and 'substance' which feel static and obscure whereas the images in Scripture seem to be much more dynamic and relational.<br />Seems to me that underlying this is the question of revelation : "how do I have a relationship with God, and can I ever <i>know</i> that I have?" And the Spirit, it seems to me, is the means by which that relationship is initiated by God and marked as an experience of the most holy God, not the experience of some other (created) god or spirit - of which there are many (as Kim Fabricius suggests).<br />As a result, I cannot get too excited about the right <i>sequence</i> of the dynamic <i>process</i> that the filioque seems to be describing - doesn't Acts recall Peter being surprised that some Christians he came across had never heard of let alone received the Holy Spirit? - but I'm much more interested in the question of <i>discernment</i> of the spirits.Dick Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09111414869380445624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9072521608316770522009-11-11T14:34:49.302-05:002009-11-11T14:34:49.302-05:00Thank you, Acolyte, for your thoughtful and nuance...Thank you, Acolyte, for your thoughtful and nuanced responses. I don't think we're that far apart at all. I'm not really married to the filoque, in fact I offered my students (last year in a course on the Trinity) a $100 dollar prize if they could write an essay showing me why it mattered. While assuming I would be unconvinced no matter what I was willing to pay out on an approach that focussed on the doctrine of revelation, and would probably also have paid out for an argument similar to the one Ben made. My money though stayed in my wallet!<br />So I don't actually think my summation works either. Not because the principle (that if salvation is predicated upon knowledge of God and we only know God in God's self disclosure then the God revealed in the economy must be not different from God in Godself) is wrong, but simply that the God we meet in revelation gives no indication of the Spirt's proceeding from the Son, or at least none so clear that I'd not happily agree to differ over it. <br />I think, echoing some of your points, that I would take very seriously Augustine's claim that "It was through that Wisdom that all things were made; and that Wisdom passes also into holy souls and makes them friends of God". I don't think of Augustine's account of revelation as a removal of a veil allowing for a "sight" or a disclosure of information but the removal of the veil, rather, is spatial, the veil more akin to the veil of the temple, removed to allow for an encounter, a flow between God's self and the receiver of this in faith. <br />I argued in a little book called Nietzsche and Theology that Barth, in fact, shares this Augustinian understanding as revelation is a gift, not about God but, of God. <br />The very intimacy of this encounter means that we see from such a close embrace that we can't see perfectly clearly. I think the procession of the Spirit is suitably hazy and there's no way I'd "go to the mattresses" over it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15064956947600560899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65886149731383991222009-11-11T11:17:40.283-05:002009-11-11T11:17:40.283-05:00@ Derek:
Maximus does indeed have a supralapsarian...@ Derek:<br />Maximus does indeed have a supralapsarian christology. I will be exploring this in an article soon.<br /><br />mgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84070833415295809722009-11-10T21:22:02.515-05:002009-11-10T21:22:02.515-05:00Nate Kerr,
If Barth’s criticism were right, then ...Nate Kerr,<br /><br />If Barth’s criticism were right, then Rahner is wrong since Rahner’s rule as a key principle in the argument for the Filioque was in the service of the goal of a direct knowledge of God in the beatific vision. One it seems can’t maintain both points against the Orthodox. <br /><br />As for his gloss on the mediation of Christ, he is right to see the locus there, which is just to say that they do not have the same Christologies, particularly when Barth attributes a Gnomic will to Christ. I suspect it is due to the overall Reformed view sketched by Muller in his Christ and the Decree. The Orthodox simply differ with Barth and the Reformed tradition on the notion of Christ as predestined.<br /><br />That said, I’d offer this friendly suggestion as a way to think about this. It is not that the incarnation is accidental to the eternal existence of the Son, but rather energetic, which is neither accidental nor substantial in Aristotle’s first sense of substance. The East’s view then straddles this metaphysical divide without the need for predestination applying to Christ in the way the Reformed tradition tended to see it. Since Christ is the imago dei the incarnation was the plan all along. We are made in his image, not the other way around. Christ is not then, contra Augustine and Thomas, the paradigm example of predestination and grace because this framework is built on the back of an Arian subordinating and dialectical framework.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-80562840250297835272009-11-10T21:12:28.166-05:002009-11-10T21:12:28.166-05:00Anon to Aric,
You seem to want to make some hay a...Anon to Aric,<br /><br />You seem to want to make some hay about the fact that for the Reformed,the creeds are of derivative authority and that the question nees to be settled on theological grounds and not historical.<br /><br />I would push this even further, which I think presents a serious problem for the view you are advancing. The teaching has to be justified not on theological grounds, but exegetical grounds and that first, and I dare say without the aid of philosophical theology and specific committments from it or at least some form of it, the exegetical case for the Filioque is at this point self admitedly by Protestant exegetes, conservative or liberal is rather weak to non-existent.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-7368622847145867812009-11-10T21:06:18.242-05:002009-11-10T21:06:18.242-05:00David,
You do a fine job of summarizing the theol...David,<br /><br />You do a fine job of summarizing the theological argument for the filioque based on an isomorphic relationship between the economia and the theologia. I’d offer a few objections/problems to consider.<br /><br />First, it depends on the kind of divine simplicity that Augustine endorses from middle/late Platonism. Without it, the inference from the economia to the theologia won’t go through. And from a Protestant perspective, one is going to have a hard time finding an exegetical ground for that notion of simplicity.<br /><br />Second, the skeptical worry is ill founded for it turns on the assumption that the activities are anhypostatic, that is the persons are not in their activities. One doesn’t have to have exhaustive disclosure to have genuine disclosure. Revelation can still be genuine without isomorphism here.<br /><br />Third, why assume that if the divine essence is always unknowable that what we know of God in his activities isn’t also genuinely divine? Again, this is only a problem if we hold to the kind of simplicity that Augustine thinks is necessary.<br /><br />Fourth, the Spirit is said to be sent in the economy, not to proceed in the economy. The Spirit is always and only said in Scripture to proceed from the Father.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-24773860212642448222009-11-10T20:47:09.603-05:002009-11-10T20:47:09.603-05:00Regardless of De Regnon or not, Augustine’s view w...Regardless of De Regnon or not, Augustine’s view was speculative at the time and in that sense and to that degree innovative.<br /><br />The two options given are that the procession is hypostatic or temporal, but since there is a real need for an eternal procession, it must be hypostatic. But if there is space for a procession that is eternal and not hypostatic, then why go the further route of positing a hypostatic procession when you can secure everything a hypostatic procession does by say the eternal energetic procession through the Son articulated by say Gregory of Cyprus or the “shinning forth” mentioned by Maximus?Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41300762558177678072009-11-09T05:50:04.320-05:002009-11-09T05:50:04.320-05:00Not just Gunton but Zizioulas and Jenson find prob...Not just Gunton but Zizioulas and Jenson find problems with Augustine's handling of this issue - but maybe they are not as informed as you (and more inclined to stereotypes)! LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-17965530550803719282009-10-30T21:59:17.689-04:002009-10-30T21:59:17.689-04:00That clears things up, thanks!
You know, if your ...That clears things up, thanks!<br /><br />You know, if your German is good and you have some extra time on your hands, you could always call Eerdmans up . . .Tyler Wittmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-10586858796937512072009-10-30T18:53:49.294-04:002009-10-30T18:53:49.294-04:00Hi Tyler. The Göttingen Dogmatics is published as ...Hi Tyler. The Göttingen Dogmatics is published as 3 volumes in German. The first two German volumes were translated and published as a single English volume. Eerdmans has always planned to publish a translation of the remaining volume, but I have no idea if or when it will appear (or if any of the translation has been done).Ben Myersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55476864037942820552009-10-30T18:41:21.218-04:002009-10-30T18:41:21.218-04:00Ben,
Is the copy of the Gottingen Dogmatics you ...Ben, <br /><br />Is the copy of the Gottingen Dogmatics you linked to a combination of vols 1 & 2? Or is it just vol 1? I'm having trouble finding a vol 2 anywhere online.Tyler Wittmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-22118866808648213772009-10-29T01:29:03.526-04:002009-10-29T01:29:03.526-04:00Derek:
In addition to the passage from Gottingen ...Derek:<br /><br />In addition to the passage from <i>Gottingen Dogmatics</i> that Ben points to in his post above, I'm thinking of those passages throughout <i>Church Dogmatics</i> II/1, where Barth speaks of the tendency to interpret faith "in the direction of mysticism," understood as a relation of God's "immediacy" to some "mysterious interior level" of humanity (57). He explicitly associates this with what he calls the "hesychastic" teachings of Gregory Palamas, whose "doctrine of an eternal and uncreated light which could yet be communicated to the creature" led in the "Greek Church" to an "imperious desire to have a direct mystical experience of the power of God" (331-32). For Barth, this mysticism is explicitly a denial of participation in God as mediated by the <i>man</i> Jesus, the crucified Son of God (56).<br /><br />Now, I'm not saying that Barth got Palamas and the East right here at all. Panayiotis Nellas's book <i>Deification in Christ</i> clearly confirms the Christic framework for deification in the East, and Georgios Mantzaridis’s <i>The Deification of Man</i> shows how this Christic logic is thoroughly at work in Palamas. This is why I described the mysticism of the East as a "Christ-mysticism." Your quote from Lossky and your explanation of it actually confirms my suspicions here, though. Deification is "in Christ" as the "pattern" for the Incarnation is in principle distinct from the singular human being Jesus of Nazareth. The incarnation is accidental to the eternal existence of the Son (though "fitting," no doubt) and <i>successive</i> with regards to the "order assigned to the first Adam." Part of Barth's criticism of mysticism is that it forgets the precise nature of the divine "before" that is God's eternity (624), which for Barth is the eternal decision to be "God with us" in Jesus Christ. My only point is that the <i>filioque</i> only really makes sense if that eternal divine "before" is the singular human being Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not sure the East has ever thought this consistently. I'm not sure it has been thought consistently in the West either; but insofar as it has, this has been (the good) part of what has pushed it in the direction of confessing the <i>filioque</i>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-35092855414023305582009-10-28T22:14:59.212-04:002009-10-28T22:14:59.212-04:00The quote is found from pp. 136-137.
Lossky goes ...The quote is found from pp. 136-137.<br /><br />Lossky goes to great lengths to point out that when the Eastern Orthodox talk about "mysticism," they are first and foremost referring to deification/divinization/theosis, as properly understood within the framework of the dogmas of the Church. Further, Lossky lays out how deification necessarily involves the economy of all three persons of the Trinity.<br /><br />That said, and that said alone, is what has me baffled with what has been said here on this blog, on Barth's critique of the "mysticism" of the East, as if it where some vague, subjective enterprise.<br /><br />Derek D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-69816861580477070752009-10-28T22:00:52.830-04:002009-10-28T22:00:52.830-04:00Nate:
Can you point me into a direction where I c...Nate:<br /><br />Can you point me into a direction where I could learn more about Barth's criticism of the East of its "'mysticism' divorced from the Son (as with Barth)."<br /><br />This keep popping up and I'm not sure what that really means.<br /><br />Permit me to quote from Vladimir Lossky's "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.":<br /><br />"For St. Maximus the incarnation and deification correspond to one another; they mutually imply each other. God descends to the world and becomes man, and man is raised towards divine fullness and becomes god, because this union of two natures, the divine and the human, has been determined in the eternal counsel of God, and because it is the final end for which the world was created out of nothing. One would suppose from some modern critics that St. Maximus held a doctrine similar to Dons Scotus: if original sin had not taken place, Christ would have become incarnate anyhow, in order to unite created being and the divine nature in Himself. However, as we have seen, when examining the teachings of St. Maximus on creation, Adam was destined to unite in his own being the different spheres of the cosmos, in order that deification might be conferred upon them, through union with God. If these unions and successive 'syntheses' that surmount the natural divisions are brought about by Christ, it is because Adam failed in his vocation. Christ achieves them successively by following the order which was assigned to the first Adam."<br /><br />Derek D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-2207563878957184512009-10-28T12:34:35.504-04:002009-10-28T12:34:35.504-04:00Aric,
The fact that you are a PC(USA) pastor lead...Aric,<br /><br />The fact that you are a PC(USA) pastor leads me to ask another question. It is one of the central theological commitments of the Reformed tradition that creeds and confessions are reformable; they are not taken as bearing absolute material authority. They can be changed when the people of God become convinced, in the light of Holy Scripture, that they need to be. The Westminster Confession, for example, has undergone several changes. We all understand that - and the need for it. But creeds too only have a relatively binding authority. That is true even of the Nicene Creed. A proposed change of the Creed (even one which calls only for the restoration of the original text) would involve a change in our Book of Confessions (which would be subject to a barrier procedure as you know). The question then becomes: on what grounds would you argue for a restoration of the original text? The mere fact that the Orthodox don't accept the Western addition? In all honesty, I have to say that the Orthodox position has been, from the beginning, as much and as little an "accident of history" as the Reformed acceptance of the Western addition. On both sides, serious theological considerations were in play in the decisions made - which means that the case can only be decided theologically, not historically. And that also means: in a manner that is faithful to the witness of Scripture. The fact that the Orthodox don't accept the filioque proves nothing where the truth of that doctrine is concerned.<br /><br />In any event, you are obviously free to bring a proposed overture to the church, asking for a rejection of the filioque. But I would think that, in a Reformed church, the argument that something is not accepted by the Orthodox cannot, by itself, be decisive. It provides an occasion for a discussion, nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65187858764554920952009-10-28T11:32:43.507-04:002009-10-28T11:32:43.507-04:00The catholics themselves grant the "filioque&...The catholics themselves grant the "filioque" was added. Really, it's not so much theological as political; western kings and nobles used the filioque (and papists) as a bargaining chip when they wanted to affirm their power, and call the greeks, russians, slavs infidels, or something.<br /><br />That said, the Eastern church fathers were not mistaken in perceiving the mystic Christ of the gospels (esp. Iohannes). Nor was Augustine. They weren't nominalists, but closer to neo-platonism, however troubling to calvinists (or anglican-calvinists). The nominalism--and naturalism-- crept in with ... Aristotle, arguably (and perhaps the filioque itself)Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-34467493157923981282009-10-28T02:55:03.236-04:002009-10-28T02:55:03.236-04:00Ben and others:
Just a quick thought before I hea...Ben and others:<br /><br />Just a quick thought before I head to bed. I'm tired so hopefully this is coherent. But I've been thinking about this today and wanted to post if only to avoid the fact that not doing so would prevent me from sleeping. <br /><br />Could it be said that the filioque (and there is some support for this in Augustine) is also concretely about the way in which the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ as only and without reserve the Spirit of the singular human being <i>Jesus</i>. Sure, Eastern Orthodoxy articulates the way in which the Spirit proceeds <i>from</i> the Father, <i>through</i> the Son. But is it perhaps the case the Eastern Orthodox thought is here driven by an understanding of the "cosmic Christ" in which the Son/Logos is in surplus of the human Jesus? So the "Son" through whom the Spirit proceeds and by whom the Spirit is sent is the cosmic Christ as a kind of <i>logos asarkos</i>? This would be a stronger argument of the filioque than the "weak argument" you were admittedly offering. The problem then with the East (and I am over-generalizing here, to be sure) is not just its "mysticism" divorced from the Son (as with Barth), but precisely its <i>Christ</i>-mysticism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584371933193379683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-89346630898569819642009-10-27T21:36:26.898-04:002009-10-27T21:36:26.898-04:00How would you handle the doctrines defined at Chal...How would you handle the doctrines defined at Chalcedon? There are still very vibrant branches of Christianity that formally reject them. This issue doesn't manifest itself as clearly in the Creed, but would you feel uncomfortable confessing that Christ is one person with two natures, one divine and one human, given that this was not accepted by a significant portion of the church?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835110663089845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-39160438652448087612009-10-27T19:19:08.742-04:002009-10-27T19:19:08.742-04:00@ Anonymous,
My statement was not intended as a r...@ Anonymous,<br /><br />My statement was not intended as a reduction the way you describe. I did not say the filioque was rejected by the whole church - which would indeed have limited the whole church to eastern orthodoxy, but rather that it had not been accepted by the whole church. It obviously has been accepted by some, even the majority, of the church. The usual standard for the ecumenical confessions however has been "the whole church", which the filioque clause does not meet. I am a pastor in the PC(USA) and that fact matters to me more than the accident of history which places my denomination in the western stream, and thus the filioque confessing, branch of the church.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-24662879506100543042009-10-27T19:13:01.917-04:002009-10-27T19:13:01.917-04:00Ben,
You've sparked some good conversation he...Ben,<br /><br />You've sparked some good conversation here. Props for that. I've certainly been thinking about it the past few days.<br /><br />One thought that is recurring for me is that I don't think the standard narrative around Barth and Barmen is very helpful. It is the fallacy of using a Hitler analogy in an argument. Everything to do with national-socialism is so out of bounds, so patently immoral that everyone is forced to agree with your conclusions. Barth was right. The German Christians were wrong. Natural theology leads to the holocaust. Boom. Argument over.<br /><br />I know you aren't saying anything as simple as that, but do you really mean to imply that the filioque somehow has the power to prevent genocide? Or that contemporary protestant pneumatologies are really analogous to theological justifications of the final solution? <br /><br />Does doctrine even function this way? Seems to me that there are plenty of doctrinally orthodox people who are total assholes, and heterodox folks who are quite saintly. Is it likely that any doctrine, no matter how sound, is a good defense against evil?Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-40513460936312219562009-10-27T08:15:10.410-04:002009-10-27T08:15:10.410-04:00While I agree with the necessity of the filioque, ...While I agree with the necessity of the filioque, I think we should watch out not to chain down the Spirit, just because it's more convenient for us in the sense that errors are less likely to be made.<br />The wind blows where it wishes etc.<br /><br />Btw it seems to me the problems described in the post (liberal theology's thinking every flower blooming is the living spirit at work, or the paganism of nazi germany and what it called christianity) are just as much problems of lack of balance in the Trinity, sometimes forgetting Christ or the Father. <br />A focus only on the Father or a focus only on the Son can have just as devastating consequences.<br />I'm not sure the filioque is really the point where the errors are made instead of just imbalanced ways of thinking of the Trinity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-17695571581752110692009-10-27T06:54:31.631-04:002009-10-27T06:54:31.631-04:00The phrase Aric uses — “a Western innovation never...The phrase Aric uses — “a Western innovation never accepted by the whole church” — is very telling. For what it does is to reduce “the whole church” to Eastern Orthodoxy. After all, if the statement had read “a Western innovation never accepted by the Orthodox,” it would have been factually true. But if “the whole church” is substituted, then a reduction has occurred. Obviously, “the whole church” is divided on this question.<br /> <br />For myself, as a member of the PC(USA), the creeds are authoritative only insofar as they are adopted and promulgated by my church – and interpreted by our confessions. That’s our polity. I would have to become something else to depart from it. The problem for us today is that most theologians operate as independent contractors, rather than as doctors of a particular church. And their “ecumenism” points back to a phase of the church’s existence which no longer exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com