"Oh Well, since I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Kosta. :) Now, I KNOW I won't get a lick of support in this, but I'm still going to throw out the completely crazy Protestant idea that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND Son. Blogger, sometimes we Protestants have to go way out on a limb on things like this, but that's what we're here to do! :)"
That's the filioque innovation you guys learned from the Latins. The Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son. Here's +Gregory Palamas' discussion:
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
It is important because it effects the monarchy of The Father. The Latin and Orthodox Churches have pretty much worked this out and the filioque is no longer used in teaching settings or when the Creed is recited at least in Greek or Slavonic or Arabic; I don't know about Latin. It has also been agreed that the Creed without the filioque is normative.
Here's a link to the Agreed Statement on the Creed and the filioque clause. Its long but definately worth reading for all Protestants since it was from Rome that you got this idea in the first place:
"http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p01.asp
Back to work!
"Back to work!"
Man, you know how to ruin a good day.
You know something Kolo. Here is something which I think in these discussions is a misunderstanding from some Catholic and orthodox folks. There seems to be a misunderstanding that by Sola Scriptura, we won't listen to any other sources and what they say. This isn't true. We have teachers. We have debates. We even look at Creeds. The key is, what is said, must be found and supported by Scripture in its full context. If it is extra-biblical revelation that clearly contradicts Scripture (i.e., Benny Hinn saying that there are 9 members of the trinity since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ALL have bodies souls and spirits) it is rejected. If is a formulation that makes a clearly SCRIPTURAL concept more concise, such as defining whom the Son is or what the Trinity is, we do not reject such knowledge for it is backed up and taught in Scripture. I don't believe that my fellow Sola Scripturists would disagree with that statement. Popes and Bishops where they were speaking truth which was supported by and taught in Scripture are not rejected outright any more than my Pastor or a Sunday School teacher would be rejected for speaking Biblical truth. Its on issues which we consider unscriptural that we take issue. We believe that the idea that interpretation of Scripture is for an official centralized church body and not for all believers everywhere is unscriptural. We do not believe that new believers can't benefit from being taught. They need to understand things such as looking at Scripture in its context in order to rightly divide the word of truth. But, at some point in time, they should be so well versed in Scriptural truth that such teaching isn't a necessity. It isn't shunned. We all have Pastors. But some of us have grown to be teachers ourselves and are led by the Spirit when we read and apply the Word of God as well. Does that make sense?
As you might have suspected, the only real reason I posted that was to poke a little fun at our Catholic friends, since NONE of them challenged Kosta's earlier statement of the Orthodox view on the subject. Since that statement jumped off the page at me, I would have thought, etc. etc. :) I only learned what the filioque even is on the L&E thread. I do realize that it is a huge issue for you all, and I respect that. It just hasn't reached major issue status for me yet.
[+Gregory Palamas:] It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
Thanks for the quote (and the link). This verse is interesting, but I have to admit that I am not the guy to be debating this. :) I know that I don't even fully understand why this is important yet. FWIW, I found part of an argument from the other side on New Advent:
As to the Sacred scripture, the inspired writers call the holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
This is under the filioque section. The argument sort of sounds like "sent by" and "proceed from" are the same thing. I remember something about them being very different, but I couldn't explain it well to anyone. :)
In any event, I am not sure of statements from Palamas such as "Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father." Since everyone agrees that all Three are co-eternal, I don't see how these go together.
It is important because it effects the monarchy of The Father.
Is there a way to summarize how this is?
It is good to hear that both sides are seeming to come together on the issue.