Quick Trinitarian Progression Question

[N/A Gone]

Ok, quick question.

WOuld it be wrong to say that in the same way the Son "contributes" to the "creation" of the Spirit, that the Spirit "contributes" in the "creation" of the son?




**ignore the fact that "creation" and "contributes" are loaded terms and answer the bloody question with PROOF!!!!



(basic idea, If the Spirit is understood as the love between father and son, then the love would also contribute to the creation of the son. Not just be the result. In this the father is still held as primary creator, with both other members of the trinity contributing in the progression of the other. Being that our language is limited to one thought at a time, I feel that the actions could have happened together, and co-dependant on each other.)

Just a thought. Am I a heretic?

Edited June 5, 2007 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

Gonna post some comments from a convo I had tonight with a smart guy.


[quote]Read this link (*provides link to this thread)
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellGod: Dear God, that would be very wrong[/color]
rev_prodeji: :'(
rev_prodeji: I feel like the puppy hit with the newspaper..
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog haha, sorry[/color]
rev_prodeji: care to tell me what I pee'd on?
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: hold on[/color]
rev_prodeji: yes sir
rev_prodeji: see...this is what happens when I think theology in the shower.
rev_prodeji: listening to Fleetwood mac
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: well, b/c the son only relates to the first person as father, not the first and the third. this is in virtue of the fact that only the first person begets[/color]
rev_prodeji: that is a classic argument that the east would use to show that the son could not "contribute"
rev_prodeji: in essence, thats the nutshell of the filioque debate..But Im working with that somewhere else.
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: it is true that western theology is often criticized for giving the Holy Spirit too much of a passive role in the Trinity, but I don't think the solution is to attribute some role to the Spirit in the begetting of the Son[/color]
rev_prodeji: In an augustine model (love model) the spirit is understood as the love between the father and son. But wouldnt the love contribute to the creation of the son? Anytime in scripture God creates it is with the spirit (gen) and in love (God so loved the world...)
rev_prodeji: the problem with western trin theo is that the spirit becomes a 3rd wheel. A puppy. The filioque was created to show the son as divine, because he could assist in the crreation of the spirit. Dont we need the spirit to do the same? And in scripture the spirit is what hovers over mary as well.
rev_prodeji: hehe..I am a dork
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellGod: i don't know if this changes anything, but u can't speak of the son as being "created" b/c that term implies that there was a time when the Son was not. That's why we use the term "begotten" (which, admittedly, I do not entirely understand)[/color]
rev_prodeji: notice my " " admiting it is a loaded term and in english we have nothing short of forma paragraphs to explain.
rev_prodeji: language from greek to latin in this issue hurts, bringing it to english is like riding the short bus...if u get my point
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: yea[/color]
rev_prodeji: so, then what else do u think?
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: i guess i don't really know. i can't think theology and play scrabble at the same time[/color]
rev_prodeji: hehe.
rev_prodeji: my master plan
rev_prodeji: muwahahaha[/quote]

yea, so Im not sure still.

[jmjtina]

I know you want trinity experts, but I couldn't resist!

From tonights Theology on Tap:

Msgr. Mark: The Trinity is a mystery which means we aren't meant to totally understand it.

(pause)

Msgr. Mark: So with that in mind, I am going to try and briefly explain it.





carry on..............

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'm surprised you put me in this convo, that's a tough question... I gotta ponder it.

[kujo]

I think it boils down to the question of whether the Trinity is a hierarchical structure. I don't see how Jesus was "created" at any point, thus there can be no "contribution" in His "creation" by the Spirit. In the words of the greatest rappers on the planet, Point 5 Covenant,"He was, is now, and ever shall be, my God, all glory to Thee." So, basically, they are all even in that the Holy Spirit is the LOVE that is central and foundational to what IS God and what IS Jesus. It's not a "third wheel," for, without love, what is God?

That's how I see it, anyway....

[Apotheoun]

The Logos can be described as eternally "caused" ([i]aitia[/i]), but not as "created."

[Apotheoun]

Below is something that I said in a previous post that touches upon the issue at hand:

[quote]Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle, source, and cause of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their existence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — [i]homoousios[/i] with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) from the Father alone by generation, and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the personal procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal existence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288545' date='Jun 5 2007, 02:49 AM']I'm surprised you put me in this convo, that's a tough question... I gotta ponder it.[/quote]

I wanted some eastern flavor. I think this mode of thought works to address issues of Sabellian modalism, and takes away the son as co-principle without the Spirit not having a principle involved. In the same way that the spirit is "through the son" the son can be "through the spirit" While at the same time not taking away the father as primate in the monarchy. Remembering that the West used the Filioque to defend what they saw as an eastern teaching, and needed to prove that the son was divine by being part of the process. I also remember that Gregory did an analogy of the trinity as Adam/Eve/Seth in which Father and SPirit were the parents. (Im babbling..sorry)

[quote name='kujo' post='1288550' date='Jun 5 2007, 03:14 AM']I think it boils down to the question of whether the Trinity is a hierarchical structure. I don't see how Jesus was "created" at any point, thus there can be no "contribution" in His "creation" by the Spirit. In the words of the greatest rappers on the planet, Point 5 Covenant,"He was, is now, and ever shall be, my God, all glory to Thee." So, basically, they are all even in that the Holy Spirit is the LOVE that is central and foundational to what IS God and what IS Jesus. It's not a "third wheel," for, without love, what is God?

That's how I see it, anyway....[/quote]

The Father is primate in the monarchy. This is a standard principle in trinitarian theology. So in that, there is a hierarchical structure. I told you to please ignore the "created" language. The issues of the language (created-begotten, etc) is a problem with latin/greek. It becomes utter lil bus with english. The average masters theology student does not even know how to explain begotten. So I simply used the term created. When instead you could throw in Begotten, generated, etc. My point is that it is not this debate at this time to argue over the wording. English is a poor language in theology. So saying Christ is "created" is wrong, and I disclaimed it. The quote you provided from Point 5 does not offer much to the issue. If you think it does could you please explain.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1288654' date='Jun 5 2007, 11:36 AM']The Logos can be described as eternally "caused" ([i]aitia[/i]), but not as "created."[/quote]

Yes, I know. I wanted to use simple language and not debate about language because the thread would get off course. To be formal we would need to bring it back to the greek and I dont know how to use the phatmass greek font.

Acknowledging that the Constantoplian creed avoids explicit language, allowing for an openess of various pnematological expressions. The filioque is more than just an issue of disagreement, it masks the serious differences in eastern and western theological mentality and method. Shaping not only the understanding of God and salvation, but the Church structure and spiritual and pastoral practices. East led by the Cappadocians have an aprophatic approach, marked by caution. Although Thomas is hostile towards the greeks he alters the western theology with a sense of the aprophatic. He is restrained in what he is willing to say about the inner life of the trinity.

**in a nutshell. I know the language problem. Now can someone play with my question, or can I just assume that it is ok?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1288658' date='Jun 5 2007, 11:42 AM']Below is something that I said in a previous post that touches upon the issue at hand:[/quote]

Thanks, But I agree with you. I dont want to argue language. The paragraph was very good. Thank you for that. In that I argue that The father is still as source, through the son to the spirit, and in turn, through the spirit to the son. The monarchy of Father is in tact, with the other members of the trinity assisting in the " " of the other members.

Is that school of thought wrong? I dont see how it is. I think it is profitable.

[Apotheoun]

The monarchy of the Father means that He is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit; and so, there can be no intermediaries between the Father and the Son, or between the Father and the Spirit, in connection with the existential origin of those two persons from the Father, Who alone is the source of Godhead.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1288679' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:15 AM'][. . .]

The Father is primate in the monarchy. This is a standard principle in trinitarian theology. So in that, there is a hierarchical structure. I told you to please ignore the "created" language. The issues of the language (created-begotten, etc) is a problem with latin/greek. It becomes utter lil bus with english. The average masters theology student does not even know how to explain begotten. So I simply used the term created. When instead you could throw in Begotten, generated, etc. My point is that it is not this debate at this time to argue over the wording. English is a poor language in theology. So saying Christ is "created" is wrong, and I disclaimed it. The quote you provided from Point 5 does not offer much to the issue. If you think it does could you please explain.

Yes, I know. I wanted to use simple language and not debate about language because the thread would get off course. To be formal we would need to bring it back to the greek and I dont know how to use the phatmass greek font.

Acknowledging that the Constantoplian creed avoids explicit language, allowing for an openess of various pnematological expressions. The filioque is more than just an issue of disagreement, it masks the serious differences in eastern and western theological mentality and method. Shaping not only the understanding of God and salvation, but the Church structure and spiritual and pastoral practices. East led by the Cappadocians have an aprophatic approach, marked by caution. Although Thomas is hostile towards the greeks he alters the western theology with a sense of the aprophatic. He is restrained in what he is willing to say about the inner life of the trinity.

**in a nutshell. I know the language problem. Now can someone play with my question, or can I just assume that it is ok?[/quote]
Both the Latin and the Greek Fathers reject the idea that the Logos is "created." Moreover, the terms "created" and "begotten" are not the same; in fact, as used by the Fathers these two terms are seen in a kind of dialectic of opposition. In other words, the Son is begotten, while the world is created.

That said, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed is not ambiguous, because in connection with the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit it says -- at least as it was originally written -- that the Holy Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeuomenon[/i]) from the Father, and it does not go on to say that the Holy Spirit takes His origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Son.

Now, as far as your original question is concerned: (1) the use of the word "creation" in connection with the origin of either the Son or the Spirit is Arian, and should be avoided altogether; and (2) the Son has no part in the existential origin of the Spirit as person, because the Father (as person) gives existence to both the Son and the Spirit, and His (i.e., the Father's) personal characteristics cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity without falling in to the heresy of Sabeliian Modalism. Thus, the idea that the Son and Spirit participate in each others hypostatic origin would be seen as heretical by Eastern Christians.

Finally, the Eastern Christian position can be summarized in the following manner: the Father alone is the source of the Godhead, and -- as a consequence -- He alone (personally) gives existence to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity; and, in doing this, He imparts His essence to them.

[kafka]

Here is an interesting article on the Trinity:

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/MHT/procession-Trinity.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/MHT/procession-Trinity.htm[/url]

[N/A Gone]

Todd. I understand the language issue. I said created in " " because whatever term I used would be argued and fought and I do not know how to use the phatmass greek font.

That being said, it is acceptable in greek theology to say that "From the Father through the son" In that, could it not be said "From the father, through the spirit" when it comes to the son? Gregory of Nazianzus, in the fifth oration wrote an image of the trinity as Adam/Eve Seth in which the Son came from the father with participation of the spirit.

You reject the son being involved in any way for the " " of the spirit? Right? In that, the issue is mute to you. I respect your decision as a look at how an eastern response would be. I thought that if we affirm that the source of everything is the father, and the spirit contributes to the son, and the son contributes to the spirit then we would solve numerous problems involved with the current filioque dialogue.

In my understanding the standard eastern objections are 1.) subordination of the spirit (arguably east does this for son and spirit, but thats regardless) and I think this solves that. 2.)the fathers primacy, which I think this holds to that, 3.) The issue of the son and spirit competing (protestant pnematology has this big time right now) I think this shows a stronger bond of contribution rather than competing.

I understand the balance between ditheism and Sabellian modalism, but I do not think this is a problem in this model. There is the obvious fact that it is set against Ditheism, allowing both spirit/son to participate in the " " of the son/spirit. Holding that the father is the source, and the " " is through the spirit/son for the son/spirit. In my understanding the issue of Sabellian modalism is that if the son is given the ability to " " that he has a characteristic that belongs only to the father (hypostasis) but I agree with you here.

(As far as the eccesiological aspects I do hold that we have the original creed as primary, but this is simply a theological reflection in an attempt to stop problems of the filioque)

[reyb]

[indent]It is written in Luke 23:44-46

[color="#FF0000"]44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[indent]Question: When Jesus said ‘Father….’ is he referring to whom?[/indent]

[N/A Gone]

ReyB....what is your point? We all know who he was refering to. Are you trying to be condesending or do you have a point?