Madman
Senior Member
I believe what the Church settled by the end of the 7th ecuminical coucil, that was the last time the world wide church spoke with one voice.
Welcome Guest!
Filioque, Father or Son?
- Thread starter Artfuldodger
- Start date
I believe what the Church settled by the end of the 7th ecuminical coucil, that was the last time the world wide church spoke with one voice.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I believe they settled on the Son being eternally subservient yet equal. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I really haven't studied in detail what was settled in those councils. I didn't even know there were seven.
What did that Council decide on Filoque or was that ever settled?
Madman
Senior Member
You will have to take the time to read all the writings of the father's who put forth various arguments. They really are outstanding and worth reading.
The coucils were conviened to fight the heresies that reared their ugly head, but the Holy Spirit lead results of the council's were later used in other theological arguments.
Here is a place to start.
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LGFLS/summaries.shtml
Israel
BANNED
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
When I ask something of you...and you give it...who is serving whom? (or is it "who is serving who?")
When you give me all...who is serving who(m)?
When I return to you all you have given me...
The matter of never ending glory in this relationship of God (who has magnified His Word above all His name) in giving and receiving is all with which we have to do.
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
(Is this alone not worthy of all searching out?)
What remains of coveting glory to an envy (and all the strivings accompanying) are not merely absent in the relationship of the Father and the Son...but in complete opposition to what we have known as mere men.
For my own sake, even for my own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be profaned? and I will not give my glory unto another.
This is true. What is "other" to our God? Surely not His own...
And the settlement of this in our hearts, this pressing from all that is shakeable till only what is unshakeable be remaining, is all at work in and through the faith revealed of the Son of God.
Neither Paul nor John were seeking to be exclusionary.
Paul in saying "who loved me...and gave Himself for me.."
Nor John in speaking of the disciple Jesus loves.
Whatever may hinder this knowing, or seek to has been crushed.
What is the worth of this knowing?
It can be no less than the price paid to make it...known.
When I ask something of you...and you give it...who is serving whom? (or is it "who is serving who?")
When you give me all...who is serving who(m)?
When I return to you all you have given me...
The matter of never ending glory in this relationship of God (who has magnified His Word above all His name) in giving and receiving is all with which we have to do.
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
(Is this alone not worthy of all searching out?)
What remains of coveting glory to an envy (and all the strivings accompanying) are not merely absent in the relationship of the Father and the Son...but in complete opposition to what we have known as mere men.
For my own sake, even for my own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be profaned? and I will not give my glory unto another.
This is true. What is "other" to our God? Surely not His own...
And the settlement of this in our hearts, this pressing from all that is shakeable till only what is unshakeable be remaining, is all at work in and through the faith revealed of the Son of God.
Neither Paul nor John were seeking to be exclusionary.
Paul in saying "who loved me...and gave Himself for me.."
Nor John in speaking of the disciple Jesus loves.
Whatever may hinder this knowing, or seek to has been crushed.
What is the worth of this knowing?
It can be no less than the price paid to make it...known.
gordon 2
Senior Member
I am of the personal belief that scripture is a limited source to know the nature of God and believe rather that personal prayer and fellowship with God in day to day living is a better way to get to the divine nature-- which after all, is just that, uniquely godly. I would think that to try to glean from scripture in the usual way we glean natures in scripture and grant them to God, might cloud the reality that God is not of usual nature. From scripture we might get insights into the personalities and attributes of Paul and Peter, but it is hard to pin down Jesus.
In other words there is no satisfaction in " Father or Son." in scripture. There is only frustrations. Rather, in prayer we fellowship with all as one or one as all. We do this unknowingly... and despite our declarations. So perhaps we should consult prayers... ours and those of other saints.
In other words there is no satisfaction in " Father or Son." in scripture. There is only frustrations. Rather, in prayer we fellowship with all as one or one as all. We do this unknowingly... and despite our declarations. So perhaps we should consult prayers... ours and those of other saints.
Last edited:
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I do enjoy reading such things from the councils and the early Church fathers. Most of it is a little bit over my head. Even the later Old English theologians as well.
They use words like Hypostatic union that I have never heard of. So it takes me a bit of time to look up the words and continue.
I did briefly look at some articles on the 7th ecuminical council and some articles on eternal submission. One theologian wrote an article on why he believed it and then later another article on why he didn't.
I've seen other theologians reverse their belief on eternal sonship as well.
Just pointing out that even well educated theologians change their beliefs over time.
Read this;
"Near the end of his life, Augustine of Hippo meticulously reviewed everything he had ever published. He wrote an entire catalogue of his own works, a painstakingly annotated bibliography with hundreds of revisions and amendments to correct flaws he saw in his own earlier material. The book, titled Retractationes, is powerful evidence of Augustine's humility and zeal for truth. Not one of his earlier publications escaped the more mature theologian's scrutiny. And Augustine was as bold in recanting the errors he perceived in his own work as he had been in refuting the heresies of his theological adversaries."
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I would agree, especially about Jesus. The Father is easy. Like I said He is who I picture when I think or read of God. Jesus said "my Father and your Father, my God and your God." So when I think of God I immediately think of the Father. I never picture the Holy Spirit or Jesus.
I think of His glory and His kingdom. I picture Him sending his Son or his Spirit.
I have to see Christ, Jesus, or Messiah to picture the Son. He may be a part of the Trinity and he may be equal with the Father but I don't have this immediate picture of the Son when I think of God.
I never have even when I was a mainstream Trinitarian. I always had this image of God and his Son. I imagine God being majestic on his throne and his Son at his right hand.
I see the Holy Spirit as God's Spirit even if through the Son. Maybe I see more separation than I should. I know others picture only Jesus in Heaven as God.
I do see what you are talking about. Maybe that's why the Nicene council said they explained it better than scripture can.
Last edited:
gordon 2
Senior Member
" I in the Father." I am in the Father? Are you?
Can you or I say this with confidence? Could an angel or a messenger say it? A prophet, could a prophet say it? And are we not prophets as saints? Though the prophets uttered their God inspired words in the Old Testament, though we live as God inspired people today can we claim that individually we are in the Father?
I would suggest that perhaps as individuals alone we are not in the Father and yet somehow as members of the church we are.
But my main point is that no individual can claim to be in the godhead, or in the Father or even part or wholly of God nature. But as the messiah, Jesus said he was.
38But if I am doing them*, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works* themselves,so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”
I would suggest that perhaps no prophet, no angel, no devine messenger, no human being was ever "in the Father"... since the fall at least. And this is perhaps why John can say, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then John says this:
14. And the Word became flesh...
Now I don't think John searched scripture to say what he had to say in his Gospel about who Jesus was. I think his life with Jesus, his life within the church and his prayer life were his sources. His declarations are shocking to many even today especially with those who would rummage scripture alone to find the validity of his declarations. If John did consult scripture he went right back to Genesis and " God said..." and started running and dove right into his Christian faith-- his new lungs sucking in and expiring new breath into the old world.
Can you or I say this with confidence? Could an angel or a messenger say it? A prophet, could a prophet say it? And are we not prophets as saints? Though the prophets uttered their God inspired words in the Old Testament, though we live as God inspired people today can we claim that individually we are in the Father?
I would suggest that perhaps as individuals alone we are not in the Father and yet somehow as members of the church we are.
But my main point is that no individual can claim to be in the godhead, or in the Father or even part or wholly of God nature. But as the messiah, Jesus said he was.
38But if I am doing them*, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works* themselves,so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”
I would suggest that perhaps no prophet, no angel, no devine messenger, no human being was ever "in the Father"... since the fall at least. And this is perhaps why John can say, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then John says this:
14. And the Word became flesh...
Now I don't think John searched scripture to say what he had to say in his Gospel about who Jesus was. I think his life with Jesus, his life within the church and his prayer life were his sources. His declarations are shocking to many even today especially with those who would rummage scripture alone to find the validity of his declarations. If John did consult scripture he went right back to Genesis and " God said..." and started running and dove right into his Christian faith-- his new lungs sucking in and expiring new breath into the old world.
Last edited:
Israel
BANNED
I don't know if this will help.
My dad passed, after a lengthy illness, when I was 17. Not very long before that, I had confessed Jesus.
I saw (my father's) faith toward the end of his life and had a confidence the Lord received him. So, "I saw him in the Heaven of God".
I later wrestled much with my understanding in "God the Father". (I could attribute it to my failings and frailty of faith in facing a hard conscience vs my obvious shortcomings and tendencies) There seemed an unbreakable sternness in all my consciousness...an unremitting...guilt. It was hard...and...I was hard.
Yet, often the thoughts of "my" father would come, as one above...seeing me now in efforts and manifest failings...and I had this unshakable sense of his love and understanding. He knew what "a man faced" having faced life in the flesh himself, he knew the frailty of man, and being one. And I knew his watch of me...took all these into account as he looked upon his struggling son. Yes, dad...understood. It was not so much that I felt "excused"...but that I was being watched in love.
I didn't see then, as I do now...I had assigned Jesus "one place" to me, and THE FATHER quite another. I saw a hardness, attributed a hardness (O! the folly of it!) in the law giver Father that worked its way in me to much law within. (Talk about a Pharisaical view!) In so many ways I was such a mean man. (What may remain of meanness, God knows)
Just as God saw, sees, knows and is patient with His struggling children...at the proper time this thought came in word. "You so easily grasp your own father's mercy toward you in his sight, yet you imagine Me...see Me...as something totally apart from that." I couldn't deny this truth when heard. I couldn't deny the implications, nor did I have any inclination to...for it was all too wonderful an exposition. Yes...my guilt before my perception of "God the Father" was due to a forgiven...ignorance. And of such an ignorance that it would misshape, distort, even shame the truth...yet I sensed not a whit of shame directed.
There was no harsh demand to change my seeing, no diminishing of my (earthly) father to my perception. It was not at all spoken like "You think your father Alexander loves you more than I and we have to do something about that"...and yet it was precisely that, in certain other ways. Yes, I was indeed attributing to my father a thing of which I saw God the Father ignorant. My dad (knowing me)...loved me and had a watchful eye from above, while another Father sat enthroned and maintained (in my ignorance) a very disapproving one. And the harshness I embraced in that clinging to that view was not working a joy unspeakable. I cannot describe the pleasure of having that lie...exposed.
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Yes, there was an exchange made in me those many years ago. Something was compelled to make way for truth. How God in Christ was in the full experience of Jesus Christ as man, there being no division. I cannot express how my heart thrills to every disabusal of lie that would creep. I cannot express the enrapture of being shown so wrong...specifically in this, of how much greater is the love of God than I ever can think. Of how much greater mercy abounds than at any moment...I may presently contain in my knowing. I begin to glory in my weakness and frailty, my need...of sight. There is a laughter so boundless I am now able to hear...when I am tempted to "think myself" something, or seek to make myself...something. And, I am invited to join...and not forbidden, I am invited to that exchange. It's been made mine as gift. But never...only mine.
Someone wrote this said by another. Of course translations, interpretations...even "eye witness" accounts by affidavit are subject to review. A man swearing to a thing can never make it truth to another. A lie has no ability to disclose itself as lie...but truth is all that lie is not. Truth has in itself the bearing of witness. And that, purposed.
One might see a man's (even, or perhaps especially) a believing man's struggle in this:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
"and hast loved THEM, AS thou HAST loved ME."
O! past tense!
I know a man who has tried to wrap his mind around this. He knows if he can grasp this he will then have something. Then have something. But in all his seeking to grasp, he can only contradict himself. The ease he thinks he has in understanding of how the Father loves Jesus the Son is the very ease with which he must dismiss himself from inclusion. The obedience! The giving to suffer without complaint! The endurance! The purpose of devotion to hold fast to truth when all opposes! What a man! What integrity is seen! Yes, such a man believes he "easily" understands the how and why of the Father's great love for Jesus Christ.
But the man suffers here, in his seek to grasp. He sees...none of this...in himself. He cannot skin a knuckle without tapping a well of complaint. The very things he (thinks) he sees in Jesus in ease of view, and are plainly lacking "in himself" he cannot square. Upon these things easily seen he cannot but disqualify himself. O! the sorrow! His seeing undoes him. His understanding is rebuffed. (And O! so rightly so!)
There is nothing to be grasped. Nor grasped at. It is either believed or one must question whether Jesus said it. For to believe Jesus said it, and then question it...leaves one in the greatest misery of all doubt. But...how can one not? This is all impossible to man...even the man who would "look into" Jesus Christ and see nothing but such purity that even his looking is shamed.
And so all "figuring out" is so unequivocally destroyed. Only a child can receive this.
He will appear a fool among men. He must. He is as convinced of this of he has now been convinced of its truth. For where the wisdom of men prevails to a disavowing of their very own mercy, another has prevailed despite. The most foolish thing "in the world" has prevailed. The impossible is revealed. And one may know Jesus Christ would have never said anything less, nor other. He speaks all and only what is impossible...to man. That the Son of man assume His rightful place in all contradiction to the sin of unbelief.
for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. (YLT)
This is the work of God that you believe upon him whom he has sent.
Opposition will only prove one thing...another is stronger.
Submission will only show one thing...another is stronger.
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it.
My dad passed, after a lengthy illness, when I was 17. Not very long before that, I had confessed Jesus.
I saw (my father's) faith toward the end of his life and had a confidence the Lord received him. So, "I saw him in the Heaven of God".
I later wrestled much with my understanding in "God the Father". (I could attribute it to my failings and frailty of faith in facing a hard conscience vs my obvious shortcomings and tendencies) There seemed an unbreakable sternness in all my consciousness...an unremitting...guilt. It was hard...and...I was hard.
Yet, often the thoughts of "my" father would come, as one above...seeing me now in efforts and manifest failings...and I had this unshakable sense of his love and understanding. He knew what "a man faced" having faced life in the flesh himself, he knew the frailty of man, and being one. And I knew his watch of me...took all these into account as he looked upon his struggling son. Yes, dad...understood. It was not so much that I felt "excused"...but that I was being watched in love.
I didn't see then, as I do now...I had assigned Jesus "one place" to me, and THE FATHER quite another. I saw a hardness, attributed a hardness (O! the folly of it!) in the law giver Father that worked its way in me to much law within. (Talk about a Pharisaical view!) In so many ways I was such a mean man. (What may remain of meanness, God knows)
Just as God saw, sees, knows and is patient with His struggling children...at the proper time this thought came in word. "You so easily grasp your own father's mercy toward you in his sight, yet you imagine Me...see Me...as something totally apart from that." I couldn't deny this truth when heard. I couldn't deny the implications, nor did I have any inclination to...for it was all too wonderful an exposition. Yes...my guilt before my perception of "God the Father" was due to a forgiven...ignorance. And of such an ignorance that it would misshape, distort, even shame the truth...yet I sensed not a whit of shame directed.
There was no harsh demand to change my seeing, no diminishing of my (earthly) father to my perception. It was not at all spoken like "You think your father Alexander loves you more than I and we have to do something about that"...and yet it was precisely that, in certain other ways. Yes, I was indeed attributing to my father a thing of which I saw God the Father ignorant. My dad (knowing me)...loved me and had a watchful eye from above, while another Father sat enthroned and maintained (in my ignorance) a very disapproving one. And the harshness I embraced in that clinging to that view was not working a joy unspeakable. I cannot describe the pleasure of having that lie...exposed.
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Yes, there was an exchange made in me those many years ago. Something was compelled to make way for truth. How God in Christ was in the full experience of Jesus Christ as man, there being no division. I cannot express how my heart thrills to every disabusal of lie that would creep. I cannot express the enrapture of being shown so wrong...specifically in this, of how much greater is the love of God than I ever can think. Of how much greater mercy abounds than at any moment...I may presently contain in my knowing. I begin to glory in my weakness and frailty, my need...of sight. There is a laughter so boundless I am now able to hear...when I am tempted to "think myself" something, or seek to make myself...something. And, I am invited to join...and not forbidden, I am invited to that exchange. It's been made mine as gift. But never...only mine.
Someone wrote this said by another. Of course translations, interpretations...even "eye witness" accounts by affidavit are subject to review. A man swearing to a thing can never make it truth to another. A lie has no ability to disclose itself as lie...but truth is all that lie is not. Truth has in itself the bearing of witness. And that, purposed.
One might see a man's (even, or perhaps especially) a believing man's struggle in this:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
"and hast loved THEM, AS thou HAST loved ME."
O! past tense!
I know a man who has tried to wrap his mind around this. He knows if he can grasp this he will then have something. Then have something. But in all his seeking to grasp, he can only contradict himself. The ease he thinks he has in understanding of how the Father loves Jesus the Son is the very ease with which he must dismiss himself from inclusion. The obedience! The giving to suffer without complaint! The endurance! The purpose of devotion to hold fast to truth when all opposes! What a man! What integrity is seen! Yes, such a man believes he "easily" understands the how and why of the Father's great love for Jesus Christ.
But the man suffers here, in his seek to grasp. He sees...none of this...in himself. He cannot skin a knuckle without tapping a well of complaint. The very things he (thinks) he sees in Jesus in ease of view, and are plainly lacking "in himself" he cannot square. Upon these things easily seen he cannot but disqualify himself. O! the sorrow! His seeing undoes him. His understanding is rebuffed. (And O! so rightly so!)
There is nothing to be grasped. Nor grasped at. It is either believed or one must question whether Jesus said it. For to believe Jesus said it, and then question it...leaves one in the greatest misery of all doubt. But...how can one not? This is all impossible to man...even the man who would "look into" Jesus Christ and see nothing but such purity that even his looking is shamed.
And so all "figuring out" is so unequivocally destroyed. Only a child can receive this.
He will appear a fool among men. He must. He is as convinced of this of he has now been convinced of its truth. For where the wisdom of men prevails to a disavowing of their very own mercy, another has prevailed despite. The most foolish thing "in the world" has prevailed. The impossible is revealed. And one may know Jesus Christ would have never said anything less, nor other. He speaks all and only what is impossible...to man. That the Son of man assume His rightful place in all contradiction to the sin of unbelief.
for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. (YLT)
This is the work of God that you believe upon him whom he has sent.
Opposition will only prove one thing...another is stronger.
Submission will only show one thing...another is stronger.
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I do see the unity of the Father being in the Son and the Son being in the Father.
Jesus also prays that the disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us…that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one.”
He prayed that the disciples may be in "us" meaning the Son and Father. I can't even fathom that type of "Unity."
Jesus goes on to say, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”
I don't know if this unity in John is different concerning the Father and Son compared to the unity Jesus prayed the disciples could have.
I'd think it wasn't the same. It doesn't appear the Father granted his Son this prayer request.
I think Jesus just wished the disciples could experience that unity or that we could as well. What they had was a very close relationship. I would consider it some type of Father and Son relationship that humans have considering that we were made in that image.
I would agree with you though that the relationship between God and his Son is way beyond what we as humanity experience.
Humanity? I've been reading a bit on that concerning the Father and Son. Jesus knew that he would come to the earth and become humanity as he was eternally begot. Humanity made in that Father and Son image. Humanity eventually having that unity. "In that day" maybe when we see Jesus as he is and become like him.
How close can this unity become? I'm not sure. Will it be as close as the Father and Son? I don't think so.
gordon 2
Senior Member
Yours are good observations and comments Art.
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
What about this;
The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
1. The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.
2. The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
3. The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations.
4. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. "Spiration" comes from the Latin word for "spirit" or "breath."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity
Madman
Senior Member
I don't believe that the infinity of The Holy Trinity can be fully comprehended by the created mind, and I have no problem with that. The Church has several different views of how The Holy Trinity may be defined, but they all agree on at least one part.
Co-equal
Co-eternal
one God
three persons
Similar threads
