Finished The Filioque Project

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1599769' date='Jul 14 2008, 03:06 AM']you wrote a paper about my paper? (it is the topic of the thread)[/quote]
Nope, it is not a response to your paper. It is simply a presentation of the Eastern Christian viewpoint as it concerns the procession of origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit, and the Western addition of the "filioque" to the creed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1599689' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:51 PM']An interesting thing about this (to quote L_D) is With all due respect: Florence does not use the word aition in reference to the Son and many eastern readers seems incapable of reading these texts outside the confines of Constantinopolitan-Cappadocian-Palamite triadology.[/quote]
The Greek translation of the Florentine decree, which was made at the time of the synod, uses the term "ekporesis" in describing the Spirit's movement through the Son, which is unacceptable to Eastern Christians. Moreover, it also uses the term "aition" when the decree says that the "Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, [and] this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause ([i]aition[/i]), and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father." The Son is not a "cause," secondary or mediate, nor is He said to be a "single principle" with the Father as far as the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin is concerned.

[N/A Gone]

I know it was not about my paper. I was joking. I respect Apotheoun on a crazy level.

Speaking of which, sir. Did you read the paper? I know parts of it you will disagree with, but I wanted to know your overall opinion.

[CatholicCid]

Rev, thanks for the clarification.

I've been able to get a bit further.

A quick spelling/grammar correction. Page 8, paragraph 2, sentence 1.
"In the New Testament,... the gospel of Luke where the angel [b]is[/b] visiting with Mary."

I apologize if my next thoughts sound a bit rambling, but as I have a bit of free time, I will be reading your paper and making my comments directly into this post. I also realize you might answer some of my concerns/questions later on.


You make the point that there is scriptural proof for this concept, but that scripture involved must be understood as an expression of the inner workings of the Trinity. You also acknowledge that the Eastern Orthodox do not accept this assumption (Pg 7, Paragraph 2). You proceed to explore the Scriptural evidence, but will you make any attempt to offer a solution that will allow the EO to accept the assumption made?

As for the actual scriptural application, I think it is quite a logical and solid approach. You rightly apply the concept used in the formulation of the scriptural basis of the filoque to your concept. Is it right to assume that you directly quote Matthew and Luke as they are the strongest examples for this approach? Did you consider any other scriptural passages that would give strength to this argument? Are there any OT passages that would be seen as a foreshadowing of the Holy Spirit being involved in the begetting of the Son?


Sadly, responding to an email took much longer then I thought, so I'll have to stop me reading just before Pg 10 for now.

[N/A Gone]

Being that the paper was originally developed for part of my protestant undergrad I wanted to spend more time on historical theology and develop a systematic rather than use scripture passages that would have been twisted for or against. Arguing scripture in a protestant arena is often times fruitless.

If I take the paper and develop it longer for a Masters or PHD thesis then I will do more scripture. I likely will do my phd on soteriology so my focus will be different, but I could still play with it some more.