The Filioque Clause

[MoreCoffee]

... Note that it says wheat and not tares, so not those who are pewsitters only.

Who sees the heart but God and who can condemn except the judge on the last day? Surely no human being here on earth is judge of the faithful nor is any here on earth privileged to condemn "pew sitters" whoever they may conceive them to be.

 

[Cassia]

...

 

[Cassia]

...

 

[Cassia]

The council of Florence offered a solution that the Greek Orthodox bishops present at the council accepted but that was later rejected in Constantinople. The proposed solution was to understand that the meaning of "and the Son" may be construed to be "and through the Son" thus maintaining the proper distinctions revealed in holy scripture between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What does thru the Son mean to you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does thru the Son mean to you?

It means what it says. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Procession is thus a joint "activity" of Father and Son and an "attribute" of the Holy Spirit just as being "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is an "activity" of the Father and an "attribute" of the Son. As the creed says.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is adored and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.​

 

[Pedrito]

Who sees the heart but God and who can condemn except the judge on the last day? Surely no human being here on earth is judge of the faithful nor is any here on earth privileged to condemn "pew sitters" whoever they may conceive them to be.

That was from Post #21 on Page 3.

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

That was from 1 John 5:16,17 (DRC [Roman Catholic] Version).


It looks like believers actually have a responsibility to judge (in the sense of discern) the spiritual position of others. And to act upon it if circumstances so dictate.

 

[Pedrito]

“The Church is the body of Christ so how can it be an institution? I know that people say things like "institutional church" but that almost always appears to be part of a complaint about why they do not go to church. But since the Church is the body of Christ and not some human invented "institution" it is a misplaced complaint.”

MoreCoffee stated that in Post #17 on Page 2.

Yet elsewhere we have been informed informed that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and the like may well get to heaven, but Protestant believers, because they are not within the Roman Catholic Church, won’t.

(Roman Catholic sources related to that have been quoted in another thread.)

For a statement like that to be made, it would appear that the Roman Catholic Church must be an identifiable institution.

Dictionary.com – institution - “an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character.”

Institutions (as in organisations) can normally be identified as being such, by their internal hierarchies.

Therefore, in Pedrito’s (possibly misguided) perception, the Roman Catholic Church is indeed an “institution”.

 

[Pedrito]

Part of the Athanasian Creed as quoted in Post #11 on Page 2 [emphasis added]:

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

So, we have:
- The Son was begotten of the Father, which means the Father must have existed before the Son;
- The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, so the Two must have existed before the Holy Ghost;
- None is before or after any of the others. (That is not referring to rank. Rank is mentioned separately.)



Maybe Pedrito is a bit thick.

==============================================================================================

Also note:

He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

And so many of us were looking forward to meeting people like the Apostle Paul when we get to Heaven.

What a disappointment.

It would seem that his indelible and undeniable statements about God and Jesus, have left him disqualified.

 

[Josiah]

Part of the Athanasian Creed as quoted in Post #11 on Page 2 [emphasis added]:


So, we have:
- The Son was begotten of the Father, which means the Father must have existed before the Son;

No.

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, so the Two must have existed before the Holy Ghost

No.

No one is before or after any of the others.

Right.

 

[Cassia]

I think the misunderstanding is in the word persons, because the Father and the HS are spirit only and only the son can be considered a person in any language.

 

[Pedrito]

From Post #28 on Page 3 regarding statements in the Athanasian Creed, and responses in Post #29 on the same page:

Post #28:“The Son was begotten of the Father, which means the Father must have existed before the Son”
Post #29: “No.”

Post #28:“The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, so the Two must have existed before the Holy Ghost”
Post #29: “No.”

Post #28:“No one is before or after any of the others. (That is not referring to rank. Rank is mentioned separately.)”
Post #29: “Right”

Did anyone catch the real significance of the single-word responses, with no attempted explanation for the internal inconsistency (illogicality) within that creedal statement?

==============================================================================================

How strongly that inconsistency and complexity compares with St. Paul the Apostle’s simple and straightforward statements about God – statements that were inarguably and totally compatible with what God had revealed about Himself in the Tanach (Inspired Hebrew Scriptures – “Old Testament”).

Pedrito mentioned the existence of those indelible and undeniable statements about God and Jesus before. He pointed out how Paul’s statements, when compared to “But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity”, appeared to disqualify St. Paul from being saved.

The response to that was … Silence (so to speak).

Does anyone wonder why the silence? (Can it be that we discount St. Paul’s statements because he was Jewish?)

By the way, what were those apparently self-disqualifying statements that the apostle Paul made?

==============================================================================================

A person’s religious preconditioning just could be so strong, that that person cannot even recognise those very plain and obvious statements when they are right in front of them.

Would anyone be willing to help unshackle people’s bound perceptions? – by listing some of those statements of Paul? Would you (the Reader) be open to breaking the ice and setting the pace? On behalf of those whose perceptions are confined?

Anyone?

 

[Josiah]

From Post #28 on Page 3 regarding statements in the Athanasian Creed, and responses in Post #28 on the same page:

Post #28:“The Son was begotten of the Father, which means the Father must have existed before the Son”
Post #29: “No.”

Post #28:“The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, so the Two must have existed before the Holy Ghost”
Post #29: “No.”

Post #28:“No one is before or after any of the others. (That is not referring to rank. Rank is mentioned separately.)”
Post #29: “Right”

Did anyone catch the real significance of the single-word responses, with no attempted explanation for the internal inconsistency (illogicality) within that creedal statement?

No explanation could possibly be needed. The third point you noted is correct. And obviously, God is outside of time/space which is why neither of the first two points has anything to do with time/space. The First and Second and Third persons of the Trinity are all God and all outside time/space, just as you indicated. I have no clue what your issue is.



- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

Did Readers notice:

In Post #28 on Page 3 and Post #31 on Page 4, Pedrito made reference to clear and unequivocal statements by the Apostle Paul that would have barred him from salvation (as later declared by evolving church doctrine).

In Post #31, a request was made by Pedrito for Readers to identify some of those statements.

In Post #29 on Page 3 and Post #32 on Page 4, answering Posts #28 and #31, all reference to the existence of those statements of Paul, was assiduously avoided.

==============================================================================================

Could it be that those God-inspired statements issued by a directly chosen Apostle of the Lord, are considered too inconvenient to be acknowledged? (He was Jewish, after all, wasn’t he?)

==============================================================================================

If any Reader is genuinely unaware of what those statements made by St. Paul are, and that person would like Pedrito to list just some of the many (some only, because of space limitations), Pedrito is open to requests.

(Antagonistic requests are not being solicited, but will be responded to (but not in-kind) if received.)

 

[Josiah]

Did Readers notice

Pedrito needs to notice posts 29 and 32 (among others) where Pedrito's confusion was addressed and corrected.

And Pedrito needs to remember that this thread is about the filioque clause, not the Trinity or the timelessness of God (in all 3 Persons).

In Post #28 on Page 3 and Post #31 on Page 4, Pedrito made reference to clear and unequivocal statements by the Apostle Paul that would have barred him from salvation (as later declared by evolving church doctrine).

No. Post 28 never mentions Paul at all. And no, nothing Paul penned in Holy Scripture is regarded as heretical by anyone - whether in the East (which rejects the addition to the Creed BECAUSE it is an ADDITION to the Creed) or the West that began including it. NEITHER regards Paul as a heretic. None do now.

He was Jewish, after all, wasn't he?

After God converted him, Paul was Hebrew by race and Christian by faith. But neither the RCC or EOC ever regarded the Christian Paul to be a heretic or unsaved. BEFORE his conversion, perhaps, but not after.




- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Another fine example. :banghead:
Jesus prayed for, and then paid for, our unity, but noooooo ..... there went the professing believers dividing over things like this.

The Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son and Himself.
How could any good thing given to us come from the Father and not from the Son? It doesnt make sense. Jesus said I and My Father are one.
And He wants us to be one, with God, and with each other.

Respectfully, the division is in the organization of the Earthly church and has no real impact upon the Church Universal with Christ as its head and all true believers as His body. However, the organizational question is fairly fundamental and one worth dividing the churches (local collections of believers) over rather than forcing unity at the expense of conscience and the free will to be part of a local church. At the heart is the eternal human question of should each local church look directly to Jesus Christ as its head, one among a body of equals, or should each local church be subject to a larger, earthly hierarchy?

I would be lothe to tell any body of believers that they cannot look to a 'Bishop' or 'Cardinal' or even a 'Pope' to advise them and provide order and continuity between different local churches of the same denomination. At the same time, if God is unwilling to exercise his absolute force to compel all (every single last one) people to worship Him, then how can we compel by force any local church to abandon their conscience and not to look to Jesus Christ as their immediate HEAD, but to submit by force to some human, intermediary, earthly authority.

The only reconciliation of these two contrary acts of conscience is to have a division within the earthly churches that allows those local churches that desire to be independent, to look to Jesus as their immediate head, and to allow those local churches that find strength and comfort in traditions and order, to submit to the hierarchy they believe Jesus has placed over them for their guidance. History has shown that neither group is immune from human folly and that God can use churches from both preferences to accomplish his Great Commission.

Remember in Acts, even Paul and Barnabus split up over a disagreement and God was able to use both for His glory. I do not think that God has as much of a problem with denominations as people do.

 

[atpollard]

So, we have:
- The Son was begotten of the Father, which means the Father must have existed before the Son;

Maybe Pedrito is a bit thick.

With your indulgence, I will address your points one at a time starting with the first. I prefer Scripture to Creeds for defining Biblical Truths, so I will also focus on verses upon which this concept of the Son begotten from the Father are likely based.

John 3:16 [NASB] For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:18 [NASB] “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 4:9 [NASB] By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

So the first point is that all other considerations or logic aside, according to Scripture, Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God." That is a Biblical fact. 1 John 4:9 also clearly states that God SENT His Son "into the world", thus the Son of God existed prior to his incarnation at the virgin birth (or he would not have been sent into the world).

"His only begotten" = Strong's (G3439) = μονογενής (monogenēs): from G3441 and G1096; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child). Thayer's Greek Lexicon clarified that when only begotten is used in connection with Christ, it is intending to express that he has no brothers. The Son of God is utterly unique. It is not intended to express either that the Son is subordinate to the Father or that the Son is eternally generated by the father.

****************************

Before I waste any more of my limited time, I need to ask:
Are you indeed confused, or is this simply a clever rhetoric to steer us towards Eastern Orthodox Theology?

I have no objection to discussing real questions, but do not wish to waste time arguing entrenched positions.
You are free to reject any and all creeds you wish, but please do not feign ignorance as a debate tactic.

 

[user1234]

Respectfully, the division is in the organization of the Earthly church and has no real impact upon the Church Universal with Christ as its head and all true believers as His body. However, the organizational question is fairly fundamental and one worth dividing the churches (local collections of believers) over rather than forcing unity at the expense of conscience and the free will to be part of a local church. At the heart is the eternal human question of should each local church look directly to Jesus Christ as its head, one among a body of equals, or should each local church be subject to a larger, earthly hierarchy?

I would be lothe to tell any body of believers that they cannot look to a 'Bishop' or 'Cardinal' or even a 'Pope' to advise them and provide order and continuity between different local churches of the same denomination. At the same time, if God is unwilling to exercise his absolute force to compel all (every single last one) people to worship Him, then how can we compel by force and local church to abandon their conscience and not to look to Jesus Christ as their immediate HEAD, but to submit by force to some human, intermediary, earthly authority.

The only reconciliation of these two contrary acts of conscience is to have a division within the earthly churches that allows those local churches that desire to be independent, to look to Jesus as their immediate head, and to allow those local churches that find strength and comfort in traditions and order, to submit to the hierarchy they believe Jesus has placed over them for their guidance. History has shown that neither group is immune from human folly and that God can use churches from both preferences to accomplish his Great Commission.

Remember in Acts, even Paul and Barnabus split up over a disagreement and God was able to use both for His glory. I do not think that God has as much of a problem with denominations as people do.

Hi
I probly didnt need to requote here. In a sense we're in agreement, but my underlying sarcasm in the post you quoted of me may have given a diff impression. Sorry.

When you say Paul and Barnabus 'split up' and I made reference to ppl in general 'dividing' over doctrines in denominations, I think we're referring to two diff things.
Yes, those guys split up, for a time, but never divided, as in separated as brothers in and of THE Faith, brothers in Christ.
Unfortunately the same can't be said by some, going by the way they often treat each other, or the way some denominational stances seem to hold others outside those denominations.
I think that was what I was referring to at the time of the post of mine you commented on, but to be honest, brother, it was back in mid-April and Ive been through alot since then, in a number of areas, physically, emotionally, spiritually included, so I can't be 100% about too much of anything at this point except Jesus loves you (and me too) and He's our Faithful and True God and Saviour and that's that for now, God bless you, atpollard .

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that the passages from John speak of the Son's role in sending the Holy Spirit to us. The Filioque is speaking of the Son's origin in eternity. Not the same thing.

That's why "and through the Son" is acceptable in the West. It's referring to sending the Holy Spirit through the Son. But that isn't the actual issue.

I'm not taking a personal position on the merits, but I am uncomfortable saying words that weren't part of the agreed ecumenical text.

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito thanks atpollard for his thoughts in Post #36 on Page 4.

First Pedrito will answer the quite reasonable question posed in that post:
“Before I waste any more of my limited time, I need to ask:
Are you indeed confused, or is this simply a clever rhetoric to steer us towards Eastern Orthodox Theology?

I have no objection to discussing real questions, but do not wish to waste time arguing entrenched positions.
You are free to reject any and all creeds you wish, but please do not feign ignorance as a debate tactic.”

Pedrito is constantly confused at the way people are totally comfortable with simultaneously holding conflicting beliefs within their belief set. Naturally, they are constrained to, if they wish to remain loyal to their churches (those churches that promulgate those conflicting beliefs). The logically conflicting statements within that particular creed are a case in point.

Pedrito does not really consider himself to be “thick”. In fact, Pedrito would be tempted to apply that appellation to people of the type just described. He used that term and the emoticon to draw attention to the unacknowledged creedal inconsistency.

There was no attempt to steer anyone towards anything except the unfettered study of God’s Holy Revelation to us. (People who do study God’s Word in that way end up with highly similar understandings. Does that not seem remarkable, considering the notable, confusing disagreements currently observable within Christendom?) Nor did Pedrito feign ignorance.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito also thanks atpollard for the clarifying Scripture quotes he offered:
John 3:16 [NASB] “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 3:18 [NASB] “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
1 John 4:9 [NASB] “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.”

But Pedrito cannot help wondering if atpollard (and others) realise just what those verses actually establish.

They indeed establish that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God" and that ‘God SENT His Son "into the world"’ and that “the Son of God existed prior to his incarnation at the virgin birth”.

But if you look at the verses carefully, as Pedrito keeps encouraging people to do with all Scripture, what do we find?

We find that: God sent His Son….. Don’t we?

Who was the One Sent, the Son of? (was it God?) Who sent His Son? (was it God?) Who was sent by God? (was it His Son?) Doesn’t the bulk of Scripture indicate the same thing? Doesn’t Scripture tell us that Jesus was the Son of God? Does God’s Holy Revelation anywhere state that God sent part of Himself?

Pedrito has asked elsewhere for help finding Scripture references. He so asks again.

==============================================================================================

With respect to the filioque clause, all we have to do is harmonise John 14:16, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7, and say, Acts 2:33. Is that so hard? Or do we have to look further?

 

[Josiah]

They indeed establish that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God" and that ‘God SENT His Son "into the world"’ and that “the Son of God existed prior to his incarnation at the virgin birth”.

Exactly.

The Second Person of Trinity is God (equal to the other two Persons)... and Jesus is the Incarnate Second Person (with two inseparable natures).

We find that: God sent His Son….. Don’t we?

If I send my wife somewhere, does that mean she ergo is not a human or my equal? Was she non-existent prior to departing on the venture to which i sent her?