TurtleHare
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,057
- Gender
- Female
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
Is Pedrito telling us that the Son isn't God?
The Filioque Clause
- Thread starter Lamb
- Start date
Is Pedrito telling us that the Son isn't God?
atpollard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,573
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Baptist
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [fn]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [fn]comprehend it.
John 1:14-18
14 And the Word became flesh, and [fn]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of [fn]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me [fn]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness [fn]we have all received, and [fn]grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth [fn]were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 14:1-15
1 “Do not let your heart be troubled; [fn]believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 17:1-12
Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to [fn]all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I glorified You on the earth, [fn]having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the [fn]son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
Pedrito,
Verses provided, now ... Who is the Son?
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
In Post #41 on Page 5, TurtleHair asked:
The short answer is: No. Pedrito was not saying that “the Son isn't God” – but the Apostles did say that. (Pedrito was merely drawing attention to what they said.)
What if even the Scriptures offered by atpollard in Post #42, when looked at closely, actually demonstrate that point (despite their being offered to establish exactly the opposite)? More on that later.
==============================================================================================
MoreCoffee elsewhere stated that the Sola Scriptura perspective is heresy. (Readers will remember that, and MoreCoffee can identify exactly where, if asked.) Why heresy? Because much foundational Christian doctrine was not derived from the Bible. It was based on “tradition”. Therefore there is conflict. (But the need is still felt for some of those extra-Biblical doctrines to be retrofitted into Scripture to support their credence. Pedrito wonders why.)
There is a simple and obvious solution to that conflict. And that is: the concept of Post-Apostolic Revelation could be acknowledged. All that churches have to do is admit to their reliance on, and to their existing tacit recognition of, that Post-Apostolic Revelation. Then the differences would no longer be such an issue. Would they?
==============================================================================================
What are the common techniques that are used in the process of retrofitting post-Apostolic doctrine into the Holy Writings? Some are brought to attention hereunder.
(People can choose, as they see fit, either to acknowledge the existence of and the use of those techniques, and see where that leads, or reject the existence and use of those techniques, because their acceptance could lead to disconcerting conclusions. But at least Pedrito has highlighted that choice.)
1. New definitions are given to words – definitions that are different from those in existence in Jesus’ and the Apostles’ time – and those new definitions are used to support post-Apostolic doctrines.
2. Words are used when translating from the original language, that portray concepts which are totally different from the concepts that were demonstrably being expressed in the original.
3. Statements in Scripture are said to mean exactly the opposite of what they are actually saying.
4. Words that we are told have different meanings, are deliberately interchanged when the “meanings” of certain statements of Scripture are explained.
5. When a verse can validly be translated more than one way (linguistically speaking), a translation is chosen that supports post-Apostolic doctrine, instead of one that agrees with the bulk of Holy Scripture.
6. Clear statements of Scripture are ignored, even (especially) if when taken together they form an overwhelming (but unwelcome) bulk of clear Apostolic understanding.
==============================================================================================
In subsequent posts, Pedrito would like to present for consideration, detail (examples) of how the above techniques are applied to statements in the Bible, as well as some further thoughts pertaining to post-Apostolic Revelation.
What if that detail and those thoughts actually help to clarify the Filioque question?
The short answer is: No. Pedrito was not saying that “the Son isn't God” – but the Apostles did say that. (Pedrito was merely drawing attention to what they said.)
What if even the Scriptures offered by atpollard in Post #42, when looked at closely, actually demonstrate that point (despite their being offered to establish exactly the opposite)? More on that later.
==============================================================================================
MoreCoffee elsewhere stated that the Sola Scriptura perspective is heresy. (Readers will remember that, and MoreCoffee can identify exactly where, if asked.) Why heresy? Because much foundational Christian doctrine was not derived from the Bible. It was based on “tradition”. Therefore there is conflict. (But the need is still felt for some of those extra-Biblical doctrines to be retrofitted into Scripture to support their credence. Pedrito wonders why.)
There is a simple and obvious solution to that conflict. And that is: the concept of Post-Apostolic Revelation could be acknowledged. All that churches have to do is admit to their reliance on, and to their existing tacit recognition of, that Post-Apostolic Revelation. Then the differences would no longer be such an issue. Would they?
==============================================================================================
What are the common techniques that are used in the process of retrofitting post-Apostolic doctrine into the Holy Writings? Some are brought to attention hereunder.
(People can choose, as they see fit, either to acknowledge the existence of and the use of those techniques, and see where that leads, or reject the existence and use of those techniques, because their acceptance could lead to disconcerting conclusions. But at least Pedrito has highlighted that choice.)
1. New definitions are given to words – definitions that are different from those in existence in Jesus’ and the Apostles’ time – and those new definitions are used to support post-Apostolic doctrines.
2. Words are used when translating from the original language, that portray concepts which are totally different from the concepts that were demonstrably being expressed in the original.
3. Statements in Scripture are said to mean exactly the opposite of what they are actually saying.
4. Words that we are told have different meanings, are deliberately interchanged when the “meanings” of certain statements of Scripture are explained.
5. When a verse can validly be translated more than one way (linguistically speaking), a translation is chosen that supports post-Apostolic doctrine, instead of one that agrees with the bulk of Holy Scripture.
6. Clear statements of Scripture are ignored, even (especially) if when taken together they form an overwhelming (but unwelcome) bulk of clear Apostolic understanding.
==============================================================================================
In subsequent posts, Pedrito would like to present for consideration, detail (examples) of how the above techniques are applied to statements in the Bible, as well as some further thoughts pertaining to post-Apostolic Revelation.
What if that detail and those thoughts actually help to clarify the Filioque question?
atpollard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,573
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Baptist
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Pedrito appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth: "No. Pedrito was not saying that 'the Son isn't God' – but the Apostles did say that."
Pedrito is playing on the third rail as far as Arthur is concerned. I use the term 'heretic' with great reluctance and am VERY accepting of almost any belief as belonging to a 'Christian brother/sister'. For example I think most RCC beliefs about Mary are simply incorrect, but I do not see that as a reason to break fellowship with any RC Christian. HOWEVER, the reality of Christ's life, death and resurrection as well as his Deity are salvific beliefs. Those who deny such things are not Christian brothers or sisters and should be corrected. If they will not accept correction, then as a Christian we are called to have nothing to do with them. So your game of 'I don't believe it, but the Bible teaches it' is not amusing.
So let's make this painfully simple: IS JESUS CHRIST GOD? Yes or no will suffice. Your belief will suffice.
I will not play THIS game.
This is a shake the dust off my sandals issue to me.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Valid points.....
Josiah thinks that Pedrito's fundamental problem is deserting MYSTERY and perhaps Pedrito appointing Pedrito to "explain away" what Pedrito can't. It's called the MYSTERY of the Trinity and the MYSTERY of the Two Natures in part because all the "questions" that Pedrito (or Arthur or Josiah) might appoint self to ask simply aren't answered by God (the ONLY ONE who would know the answer - if there is one; we fan't assume our questions are valid).
Josiah thinks that Arthur is absolutely, positively CORRECT to bring this back to the Trinity and the Two Natures - because that's what is being undermined.
Martin Luther once said that "Humility if the foundation of all sound theology." We need to be HUMBLE enough to accept what God has said and equally HUMBLE to not add to it or correct it. It's okay to ask questions...... it's not okay to "answer" them and then demand that God agree with self in order for God to be correct and truthful and wise. I'm not against questions...... just self supplied "answers" that contradicts Scripture and threatens (or even destroys) Christianity. When I was a boy, we had a dog who liked to watch cartoons with us kids. He was fine until a dog (even a cartoon dog!) came on, then he'd run to the back of the TV and growl. We'd laugh and laugh - what a STUPID dog (even though we had NO IDEA how the TV worked!). Perhaps the dog asked himself, "How can I get to that dog in there?" A valid question I suppose... but the dogs answer (I'll growl) was, well, silly.... and probably kept him from simply enjoying the TV (as we kids did - as mystery). I often think God looks down at our questions and theories ... and laughs. Until we insist we are smarter than God and God must agree with the answers of self or God is stupid. Then He doesn't laugh.
- Josiah
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Pedrito’s Post #43 on Page 5 resulted in some interesting responses.
For instance, in Post #44:
Pedrito has brought Readers’ attention to deflective techniques before. One type is as follows:
- Person A says something that Person B does not like or finds threatening.
- Person C focusses attention on it.
- Person A has a standing such that his (her) words cannot be challenged.
- So Person B makes statements that focus attention on Person C, attempting to minimise or neutralise the effect of Person A’s unwelcome declarations.
The point is, that Paul’s (the Apostle’s) statements stand, no matter what Pedrito, or the author of Post #44, or the people who “liked” that post, or anyone else, believes. The statements stand by themselves, and deserve to be acknowledged. To not acknowledge them – isn’t that to imply that God did not inspire Paul to write them? Pedrito is not willing to take that chance.
Eg: 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2,3; Galatians 1:3,4; Ephesians 1:2,3; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2,3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2 Thessalonians 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3; We see that it was Paul’s practice to use the terms “God the Father” and “God our Father” synonymously, in line with how God had revealed Himself to Israel in the Inspired Scriptures that He had entrusted to them. In Paul’s perspective, the term “the Father” meant “God” (Yahweh), full stop. Must we not acknowledge that God Himself considered that understanding to be appropriate for apostolic times? (Did God perhaps perceive that a multiplex nature as understood later, would be too much for the apostles (Jews) to contend with given their background?)
==============================================================================================
Also, in Post #45:
See next Pedrito Post for comments on that.
(Pedrito regrets these forced diversions from the filioque question.)
For instance, in Post #44:
and
Pedrito has brought Readers’ attention to deflective techniques before. One type is as follows:
- Person A says something that Person B does not like or finds threatening.
- Person C focusses attention on it.
- Person A has a standing such that his (her) words cannot be challenged.
- So Person B makes statements that focus attention on Person C, attempting to minimise or neutralise the effect of Person A’s unwelcome declarations.
The point is, that Paul’s (the Apostle’s) statements stand, no matter what Pedrito, or the author of Post #44, or the people who “liked” that post, or anyone else, believes. The statements stand by themselves, and deserve to be acknowledged. To not acknowledge them – isn’t that to imply that God did not inspire Paul to write them? Pedrito is not willing to take that chance.
Eg: 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2,3; Galatians 1:3,4; Ephesians 1:2,3; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2,3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1,3; 2 Thessalonians 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3; We see that it was Paul’s practice to use the terms “God the Father” and “God our Father” synonymously, in line with how God had revealed Himself to Israel in the Inspired Scriptures that He had entrusted to them. In Paul’s perspective, the term “the Father” meant “God” (Yahweh), full stop. Must we not acknowledge that God Himself considered that understanding to be appropriate for apostolic times? (Did God perhaps perceive that a multiplex nature as understood later, would be too much for the apostles (Jews) to contend with given their background?)
==============================================================================================
Also, in Post #45:
See next Pedrito Post for comments on that.
(Pedrito regrets these forced diversions from the filioque question.)
atpollard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,573
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Baptist
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Pedrito has misunderstood Arthur's intentions. Arthur was not attempting to deflect. Arthur has answered many questions that Pedrito has asked and would gladly continue to do so, if Pedrito was a brother in Christ. Arthur has no crystal ball that will allow him to know, so Arthur can only rely on Pedrito's words.
Pedrito has made statements that appear to deny the deity of Christ.
Arthur has asked Pedrito one simple question: Is Jesus Christ God?
Pedrito has twice avoided answering that simple question.
Arthur now shakes the dust off his feet and will waste no more time on Pedrito and his heretical non-responses.
Goodbye, Pedrito.
Last edited:
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Post #47:
Readers have probably noticed a pattern by now. And not just from the author of Post #47 and the person who registered a “like” for it
The pattern is to find any way possible to ignore and take attention away from in-context, inspired statements within the Holy Bible, that appear inconvenient. (E.g. Did the Scriptures quoted in Post #42 actually provide direct answers to the Scripture-generated questions posed in Post #39? No. Check.)
==============================================================================================
Have Readers ever noticed Pedrito asking about someone’s doctrinal belief instead of giving careful consideration to thoughts and (especially) Scripture statements offered? Pedrito would suggest, never.
Why did the author of Post #47 not address each Apostolic statement presented? They are from the Bible after all – the Bible that Pedrito understands the author of Post #47 expresses loyalty to and belief in. (In fact, was it not he who presented them in the first place? With underlining even?) Did Pedrito misrepresent them? If so, how?
(And don’t forget that that same author formerly implied that Pedrito was a fifth columnist with Eastern Orthodox leanings.)
==============================================================================================
Pedrito asks how the Filioque question can ever be settled if sources of potentially helpful truth are not acknowledged? Could that indeed be the reason it has not been?
==============================================================================================
Pedrito has already floated the thought of post-Apostolic inspiration from God, as a way of defusing the “dangers” posed by statements of inspired Scripture that are normally glossed over or misrepresented.
It is immaterial what Pedrito believes. Unlike the majority of posters on this forum seem to be, Pedrito is not motivated by loyalty to a particular earthly organisation or doctrine set. He seeks to weave his way through the existing confusion and determine as closely as possible, the unchangeable and all-embracing set of truth that God must have put into place for us, for all of us, to acknowledge. It is that simple.
Determining the unequivocal answer to the Filioque question seemed to be a sensible, significant step in the right direction. (And because hundreds of years of traditional discussion has achieved nothing, Pedrito thought a fresh approach might unveil some refreshing fresh light.)
However, if the initial step involved is proving to be disquieting to some – that step being the careful review of inspired Apostolic statements – Pedrito will obey authoritative commands to refrain from further mentioning of Scripture in the Filioque investigation.
Readers have probably noticed a pattern by now. And not just from the author of Post #47 and the person who registered a “like” for it
The pattern is to find any way possible to ignore and take attention away from in-context, inspired statements within the Holy Bible, that appear inconvenient. (E.g. Did the Scriptures quoted in Post #42 actually provide direct answers to the Scripture-generated questions posed in Post #39? No. Check.)
==============================================================================================
Have Readers ever noticed Pedrito asking about someone’s doctrinal belief instead of giving careful consideration to thoughts and (especially) Scripture statements offered? Pedrito would suggest, never.
Why did the author of Post #47 not address each Apostolic statement presented? They are from the Bible after all – the Bible that Pedrito understands the author of Post #47 expresses loyalty to and belief in. (In fact, was it not he who presented them in the first place? With underlining even?) Did Pedrito misrepresent them? If so, how?
(And don’t forget that that same author formerly implied that Pedrito was a fifth columnist with Eastern Orthodox leanings.)
==============================================================================================
Pedrito asks how the Filioque question can ever be settled if sources of potentially helpful truth are not acknowledged? Could that indeed be the reason it has not been?
==============================================================================================
Pedrito has already floated the thought of post-Apostolic inspiration from God, as a way of defusing the “dangers” posed by statements of inspired Scripture that are normally glossed over or misrepresented.
It is immaterial what Pedrito believes. Unlike the majority of posters on this forum seem to be, Pedrito is not motivated by loyalty to a particular earthly organisation or doctrine set. He seeks to weave his way through the existing confusion and determine as closely as possible, the unchangeable and all-embracing set of truth that God must have put into place for us, for all of us, to acknowledge. It is that simple.
Determining the unequivocal answer to the Filioque question seemed to be a sensible, significant step in the right direction. (And because hundreds of years of traditional discussion has achieved nothing, Pedrito thought a fresh approach might unveil some refreshing fresh light.)
However, if the initial step involved is proving to be disquieting to some – that step being the careful review of inspired Apostolic statements – Pedrito will obey authoritative commands to refrain from further mentioning of Scripture in the Filioque investigation.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Pedrito thought he’d try a new tack.
The reason being, that whenever Pedrito quotes in-context Scripture and unveils the clear meaning of those statements, he is met with risen hackles. He has even been falsely charged with flaming, and more recently accused of heresy.
(By way of contrast, Pedrito notes that when MoreCoffee stated that the concept of Sola Scriptura was heretical – and by implication that anyone holding that view was a heretic – no serious censure was forthcoming [that Pedrito remembers].)
So Pedrito decided to see whether or not the Filioque question could be resolved in the absence of clarifying Scripture.
But Pedrito found that he had been beaten to it!
==============================================================================================
According to Wikipedia, “the Second Council of Lyon” [[1272–1274]] defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son, not as from two principles but from a single principle, not by two spirations but by a single spiration".
And also “The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".
And therein lies the problem.
In 1995, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) concluded that the Latin verb (translated “proceeds” in English) allows the Filioque clause to be interpreted to mean from the Father through the Son, thus adhering to the edict of the Second Council of Lyon, etc. Whereas, the Greek verb does not so allow – the Filioque clause in Greek means proceeding directly from both the Father and the Son individually, thus not adhering to that edict.
The Filioque clause is therefore orthodox if expressed in Latin, but heretical if expressed in Greek.
==============================================================================================
But what about other languages? What about the languages naturally spoken, and in liturgical use, within the worldwide Roman Catholic communion, the general Eastern Orthodox communion, the Lutheran communion, and Protestant communions in general. What of them? (The PCCU apparently stated that Greek was the only language that has the problem. But is that really true?)
==============================================================================================
The website dictionary.com for instance defines the English word “proceed” thus: “to go or come forth; issue (often followed by from)”.
So the English language seem to have a problem as well. The verb “proceed” has the same sense as the Koine Greek verb – coming forth from a place of origin – no hint of “through” or any transitional or mediate functionality. If the Latin is OK because the Latin verb can be applied to proceeding even through a mediate channel, and the Greek not so because its verb cannot, then the Filioque clause when expressed in English is heretical as well.
Pedrito is not familiar enough with the hundreds of other languages in the world, to be able to offer sensible comment on each of them. However he must wonder how many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people throughout the world are unwittingly guilty of committing heresy on a regular basis.
And on the basis of the theological considerations summarised above, should Pedrito perhaps counsel Readers who speak languages other than English, to carefully check those languages, before uttering that clause in them from hereon in?
The reason being, that whenever Pedrito quotes in-context Scripture and unveils the clear meaning of those statements, he is met with risen hackles. He has even been falsely charged with flaming, and more recently accused of heresy.
(By way of contrast, Pedrito notes that when MoreCoffee stated that the concept of Sola Scriptura was heretical – and by implication that anyone holding that view was a heretic – no serious censure was forthcoming [that Pedrito remembers].)
So Pedrito decided to see whether or not the Filioque question could be resolved in the absence of clarifying Scripture.
But Pedrito found that he had been beaten to it!
==============================================================================================
According to Wikipedia, “the Second Council of Lyon” [[1272–1274]] defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son, not as from two principles but from a single principle, not by two spirations but by a single spiration".
And also “The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".
And therein lies the problem.
In 1995, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) concluded that the Latin verb (translated “proceeds” in English) allows the Filioque clause to be interpreted to mean from the Father through the Son, thus adhering to the edict of the Second Council of Lyon, etc. Whereas, the Greek verb does not so allow – the Filioque clause in Greek means proceeding directly from both the Father and the Son individually, thus not adhering to that edict.
The Filioque clause is therefore orthodox if expressed in Latin, but heretical if expressed in Greek.
==============================================================================================
But what about other languages? What about the languages naturally spoken, and in liturgical use, within the worldwide Roman Catholic communion, the general Eastern Orthodox communion, the Lutheran communion, and Protestant communions in general. What of them? (The PCCU apparently stated that Greek was the only language that has the problem. But is that really true?)
==============================================================================================
The website dictionary.com for instance defines the English word “proceed” thus: “to go or come forth; issue (often followed by from)”.
So the English language seem to have a problem as well. The verb “proceed” has the same sense as the Koine Greek verb – coming forth from a place of origin – no hint of “through” or any transitional or mediate functionality. If the Latin is OK because the Latin verb can be applied to proceeding even through a mediate channel, and the Greek not so because its verb cannot, then the Filioque clause when expressed in English is heretical as well.
Pedrito is not familiar enough with the hundreds of other languages in the world, to be able to offer sensible comment on each of them. However he must wonder how many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people throughout the world are unwittingly guilty of committing heresy on a regular basis.
And on the basis of the theological considerations summarised above, should Pedrito perhaps counsel Readers who speak languages other than English, to carefully check those languages, before uttering that clause in them from hereon in?
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
As an aside, Pedrito once knew someone who named her cat Filioque.
Pedrito didn’t know about the Clause in those days.
But he definitely felt the claws.
Pedrito didn’t know about the Clause in those days.
But he definitely felt the claws.
TurtleHare
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,057
- Gender
- Female
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
Hmm it kind of looks like you don't believe that the Son isn't God because your saying that you think the disciples taught that but they didn't so if you don't believe in the trinity why are you in this particular forum that only trinitarian christians should be posting in?
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 15,283
- Age
- 75
- Location
- Pa
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Charismatic
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
How do you get that? Three in one and one in three, seems like there is no contradiction therre
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Isn’t it amazing how easily people classify themselves.
Take for instance, the type of person who presents from a broad set of information, only the portions that appear to act as evidence in support of their personal perspectives and beliefs. (Even if that set of extracted information is clearly outweighed by the majority of the information available.)
We see that all throughout our secular societies, do we not?
And we also see it indisputably ingrained within Christendom in the form of denominationalism and the like. (Religious tribalism and sub-tribalism, one could say. With very little, if any, dispassionate logic brought to bear.)
==============================================================================================
The problem is, that people who are like that assume, or find it convenient to assume, or find it convenient to pretend, that everyone else is like them.
So what happens when someone presents unembroidered, balanced information that appears to threaten cherished beliefs, even if that information is say, direct statements made by a Holy Apostle?
Those people strive to negate the power of that information (those statements) by pretending that that information is somehow misrepresentative – somehow tainted because it (supposedly) represents nominated beliefs ascribed to the presenter – beliefs upon which attention can then be focussed.
(And that approach sits well with other people who find the presented information disconcerting. It provides them with a much-needed, emotionally satisfying, escape route.)
==============================================================================================
So whenever we see that sort of approach in play – and we do see a lot of it – we know that unfortunately, many readers will fall for it, because it relieves them of the need to face what to them could well appear to be the unfaceable.
And we also know that the people perpetrating such ploys feel the need to do so, simply and only because the information presented, as troubling as it may seem to be, cannot be logically assailed.
The employment of ploys, proves all by itself, both the veracity of the “unacceptable” information presented, and also the (perceived-to-be-troubling) implications that the information appears to give rise to.
==============================================================================================
And what has that to do with the Filioque clause?
See the next Pedrito post. (This post would become too long.)
Take for instance, the type of person who presents from a broad set of information, only the portions that appear to act as evidence in support of their personal perspectives and beliefs. (Even if that set of extracted information is clearly outweighed by the majority of the information available.)
We see that all throughout our secular societies, do we not?
And we also see it indisputably ingrained within Christendom in the form of denominationalism and the like. (Religious tribalism and sub-tribalism, one could say. With very little, if any, dispassionate logic brought to bear.)
==============================================================================================
The problem is, that people who are like that assume, or find it convenient to assume, or find it convenient to pretend, that everyone else is like them.
So what happens when someone presents unembroidered, balanced information that appears to threaten cherished beliefs, even if that information is say, direct statements made by a Holy Apostle?
Those people strive to negate the power of that information (those statements) by pretending that that information is somehow misrepresentative – somehow tainted because it (supposedly) represents nominated beliefs ascribed to the presenter – beliefs upon which attention can then be focussed.
(And that approach sits well with other people who find the presented information disconcerting. It provides them with a much-needed, emotionally satisfying, escape route.)
==============================================================================================
So whenever we see that sort of approach in play – and we do see a lot of it – we know that unfortunately, many readers will fall for it, because it relieves them of the need to face what to them could well appear to be the unfaceable.
And we also know that the people perpetrating such ploys feel the need to do so, simply and only because the information presented, as troubling as it may seem to be, cannot be logically assailed.
The employment of ploys, proves all by itself, both the veracity of the “unacceptable” information presented, and also the (perceived-to-be-troubling) implications that the information appears to give rise to.
==============================================================================================
And what has that to do with the Filioque clause?
See the next Pedrito post. (This post would become too long.)
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
In Pedrito’s previous post, he drew attention to the average person’s (including Christians) predisposition to discount and shy away from truth perceived to be disturbing or threatening.
==============================================================================================
In that context we might well consider the fact that according to one of the church councils, church councils upon which much store is placed, and as inadvertently clarified by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.
The Filioque Clause is also heretical in Ancient Greek, the language in which God arranged for the original Creed of Constantinople (“Nicene Creed” – 381 AD) to be written. (Unless of course, churches and their adherents wish to deny God’s guiding hand there. But that has other consequences.)
The Filioque Clause is also heretical in many other languages around the world – maybe most of them – those that do not share the linguistic peculiarity that lets Latin off the hook.
The sensible question is: Would God inspire an addition to a creed that He had formerly inspired, that when expressed in even one human language, was and is heretical? (Let alone in more than one language.)
The resounding answer has to be: “No!”.
Ergo, it can be logically and sensibly concluded that the Filioque clause was not added under God’s direction, but rather in opposition to it. It is indeed heretical.
==============================================================================================
But will that make any difference? Will the churches represented in these forums recant the recital of that Clause? We all know of a certainty that there’s no chance in the world of that taking place. It is a given that established, cherished, entrenched doctrine and practice will continue to take precedence over inconvenient truth.
What a pity.
Loyalty to God always seems to take second place when competing against loyalty to organisations and loyalty to treasures beliefs and practices. Doesn’t it?
==============================================================================================
In that context we might well consider the fact that according to one of the church councils, church councils upon which much store is placed, and as inadvertently clarified by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.
The Filioque Clause is also heretical in Ancient Greek, the language in which God arranged for the original Creed of Constantinople (“Nicene Creed” – 381 AD) to be written. (Unless of course, churches and their adherents wish to deny God’s guiding hand there. But that has other consequences.)
The Filioque Clause is also heretical in many other languages around the world – maybe most of them – those that do not share the linguistic peculiarity that lets Latin off the hook.
The sensible question is: Would God inspire an addition to a creed that He had formerly inspired, that when expressed in even one human language, was and is heretical? (Let alone in more than one language.)
The resounding answer has to be: “No!”.
Ergo, it can be logically and sensibly concluded that the Filioque clause was not added under God’s direction, but rather in opposition to it. It is indeed heretical.
==============================================================================================
But will that make any difference? Will the churches represented in these forums recant the recital of that Clause? We all know of a certainty that there’s no chance in the world of that taking place. It is a given that established, cherished, entrenched doctrine and practice will continue to take precedence over inconvenient truth.
What a pity.
Loyalty to God always seems to take second place when competing against loyalty to organisations and loyalty to treasures beliefs and practices. Doesn’t it?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,206
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Well Pedrito, do not shy away from the truth taught in the Athanasian Creed. Accepting it will do a power of good for the soul.
Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is
necessary that he hold the catholic faith, which
except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will
perish eternally.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three
eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three
almighties but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not
three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
there be three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy
Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before
or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are
coeternal together and coequal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity
in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of
salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.
But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man.
He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.
Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the
dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all
men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they
who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed
faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
necessary that he hold the catholic faith, which
except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will
perish eternally.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three
eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three
almighties but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not
three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say,
there be three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the
Father alone, nod made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the
Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So
there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy
Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before
or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are
coeternal together and coequal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity
in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of
salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.
But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man.
He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.
Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the
dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all
men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they
who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed
faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.
Andrew
Matt 18:15
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2017
- Messages
- 6,645
- Age
- 40
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
In the NAME(JESUS) of the father son and Holy spirit, Jesus is the name we are to use for these three titles and we are to be baptised in his NAME alone.
Creeds began in druidism and when one is added outside the Word it is contradicting Paul when he says...
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:8-10
Creeds began in druidism and when one is added outside the Word it is contradicting Paul when he says...
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:8-10
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 19,206
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Catholic
- Political Affiliation
- Moderate
- Marital Status
- Single
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Did you consider that "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is just as much a name as "Jehovah" or "Jesus"?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,760
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
That's not true. It may be (some Christians think it is) that we are to be baptized in Jesus' name, BUT the whole issue is actually being misunderstood. Although it is standard practice for almost all Christians and Christian denominations to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost--what that sentence structure means is not "use the right person's name." It means to do something by the authority of someone or other--like the like the old Supremes' song, "Stop in the name of love." Similarly, when the cop says to "Stop in the name of the law" he is telling you that it's by the authority of the law that you are supposed to stop.
Pedrito
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,032
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Christian
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Pedrito must draw attention to Post #55.
Post #55 uses one very true statement of Pedrito’s, as a base to direct attention totally away from the demonstrated heresy of the Filioque clause.
Pedrito’s statement was:
“In Pedrito’s previous post, he drew attention to the average person’s (including Christians) predisposition to discount and shy away from truth perceived to be disturbing or threatening.”
The Poster of Post #55 said:
“Well Pedrito, do not shy away from the truth taught in the Athanasian Creed. Accepting it will do a power of good for the soul.”
He then went on to present the English translation of that creed.
==============================================================================================
Totally ignored was the clarification by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), that means the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.
Also ignored was the fact that according to one of the church councils, the Filioque statement must be deemed heretical, no matter what language it is expressed in – even Latin.
==============================================================================================
Pedrito can point to that as a classic example of one of the tactics that Pedrito mentions from time to time – diversion – drawing attention away from truth that is dangerous to cherished beliefs.
And by so doing, the author of Post #55 has inadvertently highlighted for us that the Athanasian Creed is itself heretical.
Continued…
Post #55 uses one very true statement of Pedrito’s, as a base to direct attention totally away from the demonstrated heresy of the Filioque clause.
Pedrito’s statement was:
“In Pedrito’s previous post, he drew attention to the average person’s (including Christians) predisposition to discount and shy away from truth perceived to be disturbing or threatening.”
The Poster of Post #55 said:
“Well Pedrito, do not shy away from the truth taught in the Athanasian Creed. Accepting it will do a power of good for the soul.”
He then went on to present the English translation of that creed.
==============================================================================================
Totally ignored was the clarification by the 1995 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), that means the Filioque Clause is actually heretical when expressed in English, the language commonly used in these CH forums.
Also ignored was the fact that according to one of the church councils, the Filioque statement must be deemed heretical, no matter what language it is expressed in – even Latin.
==============================================================================================
Pedrito can point to that as a classic example of one of the tactics that Pedrito mentions from time to time – diversion – drawing attention away from truth that is dangerous to cherished beliefs.
And by so doing, the author of Post #55 has inadvertently highlighted for us that the Athanasian Creed is itself heretical.
Continued…
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2017
- Messages
- 7,760
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Anglican
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
If you favor the filioque clause, join a church that uses it. If you disapprove, join one that doesn't.