Gregory, very well said. But it is more than that. In attempting to dialogue with Caucasian brethren in Christendom, the non-Orthodox often just say, “I don’t GET what you all are arguing about. The filioque means nothing to me…” and then they dismiss YOU because THEY don’t ‘GET IT.’

When I try to point out that, if Thomistic categories are correct (they’re not, but follow on with me here….) the H.S. is the ‘LOVE’ between the Father and the Son- which then makes the Third Person of the Trinity a CREATED THING.

The non-Orths look at you, and say, “So?” – And that’s when I finally get it. They truly don’t (the vast majority of them) have the ‘pnevma.’
But I soldier on….

IF the H.S. is a created THING, HE is not GOD.

IF the H.S. is not GOD, then SOMETHING has to take it’s place. Thus, your ‘training wheel’ analogy, but it goes further than that.

IF something ELSE supplants the HS as God, then that ’something else’, ALSO IS CREATED…and we have IDOLATRY masquerading as Christianity. Whether that ‘idol’ is the Pope, the State, European Man, or even ‘the Non-White Native’ of Multiculturalism, it is still ALL idolatry.

That NOT ONE of the Reformers of the 1500’s sought to eliminate the Filioque from the Creed is telling; what is MEANS is that the Reformers were merely postponing the errors of the Papacy for a few hundred years, rather than tearing it out, root and branch.

Until real Calvinists, Traditionalist Anglicans, Confessional Lutherans, and others that TRULY believe the Bible is the Word of God, understand that; at the point where their ignorance of the filioque is yet one more example of a ‘tradition of man’ their ancestors swore to abolish, when it comes to John 15:26, they are still ‘idol worshippers.’ And until they ‘get it’ about the filioque, and all its’ attendant philosophical baggage, we shall not talk TO one another, but merely AROUND one another.

And because of that, Satan smiles. I’d rather talk to my brother, and hit Satan in the teeth. St. Nicholas smote Arius during the First Ecumenical council, and was praised for it. That’s what I want again- Christianity with manliness….

Yet all we have is Rick Warren, Michael Jackson, Schmuley Boteach faggotry.

Misericordie, Domine.

“That is not our motivation. Our motivation is to reflect what Scripture teaches, not to define a minimalist ontology.”

But that is precisely what I would say about the Orthodox view of the Trinity. And no one would fault you for attempting to “rightly” understand scripture. It’s simply not true that you have understood the scripture aright (2 Peter 1:20 and 3:16).

But where is the doctrine “sola scriptura” found in scripture? I will relieve any reader suspense by saying: it’s not in scripture

I find it interesting when Protestants comb the Church Fathers for quotes affirming the idea of “sola scriptura”; sometimes to prove to themselves, as it were, that the Church has always believed this. But that contradicts the meaning of “sola scriptura”. However, that’s the only place where someone might adduce that doctrine.

The “dogma” of the “filioque” arose during the Reformation; not the “Protestant Reformation”, but Rome’s attempt to “reform” the entire Church, circa 1054 A.D. A necessary part of the foundation of Roman reform was the revision of the Creed with the inclusion of the “filioque” clause. The Church, for roughly 1000 years preceding the schism, did not accept this concept; although the idea germinated and grew in the writings of Augustine. But Augustine did not begin to articulate this doctrine until, about, the 5th Century. But his view, in this matter, was not taken to reflect Orthodoxy; thus, the Creed remained unchanged.

The problem with dialoging with Protestants is that Protestants have an a-historic, jaundiced and anachronistic way of looking at the Ancient Faith. But the bedrock of the Protestant Reformation, via anti-ecclesiastic authority, iconoclasm and “sola scriptura”, is a state of unchallengeable, perpetual reform. And, as I pointed out, the Reformation has resulted in nothing less than a two-pronged anarchy in the West; religious and secular. Which is why there is a million headed Chimera of Protestant faiths in the west, along with a million headed Chimera of non-Christian and secular faiths and ideologies.

But to illustrate my point, with scripture, would not mean much to you. For instance, 1 Corinthians 3:3 says:

“For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men”

Is St. Paul advocating an ecumenical free-for-all, concerning false doctrine. No, of course not. For he, himself, also said:

“If we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than we preached, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8)

But the upshot of Roman Catholic and Protestant “reform” has resulted in, not just unprecedented division, but a flood-gate of false doctrine and heresy in the west; such, that all the Protestant counter-cult organizations, combined, are wholly impotent to prevent the spread of new cults and religions. And, ironically, they [Protestants] are rooted in a tradition that offers justification for any doctrinal wind of change.

How can any Protestant, with sincerity, fault the “reforms” of Joseph Smith; who thought that the Church needed to be “restored” because, according to him:

“Their churches were corrupt and their creeds were an abomination”

But notice that your own concept of “freewill” is propelled, not by scripture, but by pagan metaphysics (i.e. Stoicism and Neo-Platonism). In fact, most Calvinist, today, are eager to read and assimilate the opinions of A.J. Ayer, Harry Frankfurt and Bernard Berofsky, on this subject. For instance, I dialoged with a Calvinist who objected to libertarian freewill on the grounds that it doesn’t “provide the necessary control conditions for choice because..x,y, and z.” But he failed to realize that “compatibilism” is premised upon naturalized metaphysics; particularly, it’s over reaching notion of “causality”. Causality and causal explanation are the presuppositions which drive the entire Calvinist world-view.

Since when did secular philosophy and natural science dethrone theology, among Christians, as sources which may speak down to, and at, theologians? Of course, I’ve already explained this above.

Also, I think it would do a person some good to consider reading, if they haven’t already, John Feinberg’s essay “And the Atheist Shall Lie Down with the Calvinist”.

But getting back to what I initially said:

What the Orthodox object to is the ascription of “paternity” to the Father and the Son. The filioque, unequivocally, blurs the distinction between the Father and the Son. But, moreover, the filioque has the Holy Spirit as a kind of training wheel, in relation to the larger wheels (i.e. Father and Son). Hence, a lop-sided understanding of the Holy Trinity.

1. You say, “It is not necessary to assign a mutual ’sending’ of the Holy Spirit, in order to show that Christ was God.”

That is not our motivation. Our motivation is to reflect what Scripture teaches, not to define a minimalist ontology.

2. re free will. Calvinists do believe in free will. Indeed, the Westminster Confession of Faith devotes a whole chapter (9) to it, beginning, “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.”

Your Scripture citations remind me of Wesley’s rant on the same subject. He listed dozens of pages of Scripture containing threats, inducements, etc. The problem is, if that logic is sound, then only one or two verses would be necessary; and if it is not sound, then two dozen pages of citations do not add to the case.

Threats and promises are congruent with the natural liberty of man’s will, and are appropriate even when his sin has so twisted his disposition that he will not choose for God even under such inducements. “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”

It’s puzzling why you quoted from St. Paul’s 1rst letter to the Corinthians 1:10. It’s a very good reason to reject the Protestant Reformation; a “movement” whose very foundations were, and are, schismatic.

There is no “one mind” amongst Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc. What you find among these groups, even within their own synods, is persistent bickering and dividing over competing exegetical, hermeneutic and theological traditions…..in a word, a perpetual schismatic “Reformation”. The “Reformers” instilled in the proceeding generations anarchy and rebellion on two fronts:

1) Amongst “Christians” who find perpetual faults within their own, and other, Christian sects/denominations.

2) Amongst the “Enlightenment” and “Post-Modern” intellectuals who advocate and pioneered “revolution”…a secularized version of “reformation”.

Concerning the “Reformers” exegesis:

They offered little or no substantive insights beyond the Church Fathers they were reading in their monastic communities. For instance, “Bondage of the Will” is decidedly pro-Augustinian. But what else would anyone expect from a person who had taken vows to live within an “Augustinian” commune.

As to the “filioque” and the Orthodox view of the Trinity:

The terms “only Begotten” and “Procession” denote the personal “distinctions” within the Godhead. It is not necessary to assign a mutual “sending” of the Holy Spirit, in order to show that Christ was God. If God the Father, from eternity, is Father, then it’s painfully obvious that He has a Son from eternity. No “created thing” is eternal…period!! So if the Son is not eternal, then the Father (qua Father) is not either. Keeping this in mind, ponder what this scripture means:

“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:22,23)

John’s point is that if you deny that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, then you have denied the essential Fatherhood of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. The Arian god is an evolving Monad.

I am not appealing to mathematics or Cantorian logic to make a point. The hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is established and denoted by the terms “only Begotten” and “proceeds”. With those two terms we can clearly see the personal distinctions within the Godhead.

The “filoque” is confusing, only begins to surface in Augustine (i.e. 4th Century) and is wholly superfluous. The true heirs of Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine are St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory of Nyssa. The Cappadocians got it right. Augustine got it wrong.

Concerning the nature of “freedom”:

Orthodoxy affirms the essential freedom of mankind. We see this throughout the writings of the Church Fathers; like St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocians and, most especially, in St. Maximos the Confessor.

It’s an important component of salvation because, in the Incarnation, Christ has redeemed all of mankind; in both body and soul.
Christ possessed a human “will” and a divine “will”. Apollinarians dispute the former, while the Arians dispute the latter.

The scriptures do not negate the facts of:

1) Christ, in his human nature, possesses a human nature that is free; yet without sin.

2) Humanity possesses true freedom, yet is sinful.

How could Christ have “represented” beings who were not also “free”, as He is free? How could it not be but blasphemy to say of the Creator that His “image” did not possess the freedom the He Himself has and has bestowed upon us all; as though any creature under heaven had the power to negate His “image”?

Sin has abolished our “likeness” to God; but it never abolished God’s image…nor the freedom inherent within that image.

Christ never told apostate Israel:

“Oh how I long to gather you together, as Hen gathers her chicks, but I was not willing”

But what does it say:

“Oh how I long to gather you together….but you were not willing”. (Matt. 23:37)

Since some people are “willing”, and some people are not, God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world….and separate the “willing” from the “unwilling”….the “just” from “unjust”….the “righteous” from the “wicked”.

As the scripture says:

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with me, to give to everyone according to his work” (Rev. 22:12)

How can He be said to “reward” those to whom possessed no “will” to work? Or how could he chastise the man who squandered his talent? Or how could he upbraid those who did not give unto others (Matt. 25)?

Does not scripture say to “take hold of eternal life”? Does not scripture offer instruction in avoiding the folly of sin, and so avoid spiritual shipwreck? Does scripture warn of greater punishment to those who had come to know the “way”, but then depart from it? That those, with greater knowledge, receive more severe lashes than him who had no knowledge?

That is why Moses wrote:

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply….I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:15,16,19).

I commend you, in that this is an interesting way to pose the problem, one that I have not seen before. Here are a few reflections:

1. Christ was like us in all respects except for original sin. His will was thus in the estate of “posse non peccare,” just as Adam before his fall. More generally, the circumstantial differences as well as similarities must be taken into account when using Christ’s nature to build an anthropology.

2. The problem with an appeal to “libertarian freedom” will be a definition that takes into account all the qualities of freedom. Generally, an extremely radical view of freedom devolves into randomness. In seeking to avoid Newtonian determinism, people are driven to a “flip the coin” view of freedom. But random behavior is not free behavior. It is at this point that Jonathan Edwards is helpful. Natural freedom means not being constrained from doing what one wants. Moral freedom, on the other hand, refers to having a disposition to align one’s actions to God’s righteousness. Man lost his moral freedom with the fall, and has a disposition that is at enmity with God as a result. He “freely” acts in terms of that evil disposition. Christ as the second Adam, not morally corrupted, had a disposition capable of alignment with God’s will.

More clarification of your logic is needed. When you say Father+Son=Father on the filioque premise, does your symbol indicate set-union arithmetic — so that, since the Father sends and the Son sends, the Son is then redundant?

Our Confession identifies the distinguishing mark of each Person as to origin, namely “of none,” “begotten,” and “proceeding.” Defined that way, there is no overlap of marks.

So then the identifying marks anchoring each Person and guarding against any kind of modalism or modal interchangeability, now I wonder if your set-theory arithmetic is still valid?

I think the filioque does achieve an insight into the grammar of persons. Namely, the Trinity must exhaust the 3 persons and 2 quantities of the conjugation table. The filioque insight shows how the plural is filled in both first and second person: “we” send thee, “You sent me” (as well as “Thou sent me”). Whereas, on the eastern construct, it seems like the persons are left dangling so to speak. There is no principle of “we” over against a third as gegenstand.

Likewise, the eastern view would seem to lack a principle for divine fullness: what is this “begotten” and “sending” from a single pole, and why does it stop there?

At the end of the day of course we must rest on Scripture and not our own speculations.

Nevertheless, there is surely a speculative “resting” in a formulated doctrine, in that when it is done right, a great deal of light is shed where there was darkness before. Biblical mystery illuminates; pagan mystery darkens.

Exegetically, the indicative/imperative structure of Scripture reflecting the already/not-yet temporality must be taken into account. Thus, “we have the mind of Christ” [already!] 1 Cor 2:16. Yet, Paul beseeches them, “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1:10) i.e. this “mind” is not yet fully realized, though it ought to be striven for. You acknowledged this partly, but then appeal to “when everybody in heaven and on earth” as a way to vouchsafe infallibility; but there are two problems with this idea:

1. Such a formulation is begging for a thousand qualifications. The neophyte? No, we mean those that are well-instructed. The heretic not yet recognized? No, the pious member as type. Any bishop? No, only when in union with all bishops. Etc etc. The final set of qualifications has the mark of establishing a conclusion that was in search of an argument.

2. It is probably unknowable “when everybody in heaven and on earth” is in accord; so it becomes just a formal principle, without practical benefit. Even on so basic a doctrine as the Trinity, it is saying something we do not know to assert that “everybody in heaven and on earth” affirms, for example, the Nicean formulation.

Instead, we should say that Christ does preserve his church in all ages, despite her frequent confusion and wandering, and that there is safety in the church, even though not inerrancy. This is our situation in the already/not-yet.

We agree that there is “something like” the consensus of the church and that no one should have confidence about his spiritual or eternal state if he departs from that. The Reformers bent over backward to show their continuity with that consensus. But at the end of the day, “to the law and the testimony” Is 8:20. Otherwise, we are arguing about the prism not the light.

Gregory:
Has The Church ever made a wrong decision?

I understand the question, but I think there needs to be clarification of the word “Church”.

The Church is the “body” of believers in both heaven and earth, past as well as present; with Christ Himself as her Head (Eph. 3:8-12; 5:23,30; Rev. 5:11-14).

Therefore, to claim that the Church has made a wrong decision is tantamount to saying that Christ Himself is fallible!!

Have there been schism, factions and heresies that arose among the ranks?? Yes. But that was true, even in St. Paul and St. John’s day (2 Cor. 11:12-15, 1 John 2:18,19). It should not be surprising, then, that the Church would continue to experience such things, beyond the 1rst Century A.D.

But when the Church (i.e. everybody in heaven and on earth) makes a decision, it is expressing the mind of Christ and, therefore, is bound upon the conscience of all; because it is Christ Himself, qua Head, who is speaking.

Regarding TJH response in Post #26:

I understand why St. Augustine was proposing it but, in truth, the doctrine is poison.

The filioque is anti-Trinitarian. In the attempt to rescue the Divinity of Christ from the Arian heresy, by allotting the procession of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, the filioque inadvertently abandoned the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The filique strategy merely pushes the problem back. Does the Holy Spirit not send Himself??

The problem with the “filioque” doctrine is that it dissolves the hypostatic relationships between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Father is the Father precisely because He begets a Son and sends the Spirit. To allow the Son a share in the sending of the Holy Spirit would, ultimately, mean abdicating the Father’s role qua Father. In this case, Father+Son= Father; and we are then left looking at a Monarchian modal view of God.

In the East, the Father qua Source defines and establishes the foundation, reality and interdependency of the hypostasis’, and hence the Deity of Christ. It was clear that if there was a time when the Son was not the Son, then there was a time when the Father was not the Father (1 John 2:23). The Son was eternally God, because the Father was eternally the Father. To deny the Divine ontology of the Son is, at the same time, to deny the nature of the Father qua Father….so the Arian Godhead is not Being (i.e. “I AM”), but rather Becoming (i.e. “I WILL BE”). That’s plainly absurd. It’s also heresy.

Furthermore, the Filioque ends up making the Holy Spirit a third wheel.

Regarding “unconditional election”, “sovereignty” and “irresistable grace”:

In what way, from a Calvinist perspective, is it believed that Christ was “fully man”?? Was Christ Himself not truly “free”, in a libertarian sense?? To put it another way, if Christ is “free”, in the libertarian sense, in what way is it said that Christ’s “will” is human?? If you say that Christ only had one will (i.e. a Divine will), then how can you escape the charge of Apollinarianism??

The implications of Calvinism lead to Christological heresy….which will become more evident upon cross-examining the Reformed responses to my post.