• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Do Lutherans actually teach the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son?

Discussion in 'Theologia Crucis - Lutherans' started by FireDragon76, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Protestant reformers reform what?

    I'm not sure how to respond to that reply. It sounds like typical Orthodox anti-western polemics. From what I have read, Lutheran scholastics were aware of the Church Fathers, and we don't necessarily teach the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son, right? Maybe somebody could clarify this.

    It's been a while since I dealt with this topic, but from what I read, I was satisfied that Lutherans didn't merely just crib together some stuff haphazardly. Honestly, the debating style in the above reply just reminds me of the Gish Gallup, something Orthodox frequently engage in. String a bunch of verbose, unsubstantiated and sometimes unverifiable assertions together and call it theology. I've seen this many times before, and it's one reason among many why I am not Orthodox.

    I simply think alot of philosophical distinctions Orthodox make are not relevant to salvation. It's really not that different from saying "Oh, your church is not the real, true church because you don't have X,Y,Z of unchanging Holy Tradition".
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,709
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    this is actually the first time I've heard of this term "eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son" so I'll listen and see if I can learn what is meant by it.
     
  3. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    I don't blame you. Orthodox like to parse out very fine philosophical distinctions. The whole religion is very philosophical and mystical in tone.

    They believe the Holy Spirit's divine nature has its origins in the Father, not the Son. That's all it means. The Father is the arche (origin, beginning) of the Son and the Spirit. I see nothing controversial about that statement.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,709
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    What comes back to remembrance is:

    Proverbs 8 confirms that wisdom came out of the father, if you read the OT as "God" being the Father.
     
  5. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    764
    +557
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    I would think you would have to by default because you use the filioque Nicene Creed. And I'm not aware of Luther writing anything on it either.

    I do accept the Catholic explanation of the filioque as something that was added (originally) because of Spanish Arianism (It was a local creed that gained popularity in the West).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  6. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,709
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    Google says:
    "Filioque is a Latin term added to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and which has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Latin term Filioque describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son. "

    I don't get where the son part comes from, Jesus even said when I go, the Father will send the Paraclete. Come to think of it, is the flioque even preached anymore? I've never heard a sermon on the topic.
     
  7. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    From what I remember, early Lutherans did discuss the Trinity, at least enough that I concluded some time ago it simply wasn't a concern (several years ago when I was an inquirer, I researched everything about Lutheranism). But as I said, these sorts of philosophical distinctions really don't impress me very much.

    Yes, I understand the Arian controversy influencing that. In some sense it is a relic of sorts, but that doesn't automatically make it wrong.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    It's confessed every time we say the Nicene or Athanasian Creed, which is typically most Sundays (we also use the Apostles Creed, which does not mention it).

    On Trinity Sunday, it may be related to the topic of a sermon. That's about the only time, except for the occasional mention perhaps.

    I believe the Bible is clear that Jesus does have a role in the temporal sending of the Spirit, at the very least.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    764
    +557
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    And that is why I say I understand it (Arianism was a big problem in the ancient church, and it in modern time has reared it head again to some degree by modern cults and sects). I do think the there is some truth in the Orthodox critique that it in some ways can weaken one's concept of the authority of the Holy Spirit (by making The HS subordinate to both Father and Son).

    But as far as I see it grew in the West due to popular acclaim before being officially added to the main creed (Many Orthodox can advocate popular acclaim in other areas of the Church and doctrine). The fact that it the pope attempted to impose it on the East was wrong, and of course making an official version of Nicene Creed does make a mini-schism even if that nasty schism didn't happen. Your basically changing your Operating system, or creating another banner to rally behind, that sort of thing needs consent otherwise you are putting up cultural and theological barriers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,709
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    I read the texts on google and realized in CF's version of the Nicene creed, the flioque has been removed, and I've never read the long version of the Nicene creed, so was unaware the son and father bit was part of it.

    Good to know, even looked up the arian controversy.
     
  11. archer75

    archer75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,328
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Hm.

    I admit I've never been super clear on how the filioque messes up ecclesiology and so on.

    I get the anxiety about (or: concern with) precision - and, to a degree, tradition - but I admit that the poster's comment about "psychological self-introspection" is completely opaque to me.

    To be fair, I mostly have read Orthodox theology (fairly popular theology). Probably an Orthodox, Lutheran, or RC theologian could run rings around me arguing either side of this.
     
  12. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    BTW, here's a defense from a Catholic perspective. There are some very good points. It's been a while since I've seen a Lutheran covering this issue . I think Carl Braaten did some time ago. He basically said the Filioque is status confessionis, but I forgot the exact defense he gave.


    Holy Spirit Proceeds From Father And The Son
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    It probably refers to Augustine's mystical theology about the Spirit being the love between the Father and the Son. It's really taking the whole thing a bit too far to criticize that, though, as its trying to draw something philosophical out of what is obviously very loosely mystical or poetic. Believe it or not, this is how C.S. Lewis once explained the Trinity, and he was basically ripping off Augustine.
     
  14. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    The Evil Frankish Conspiracy wing of the Orthodox Church likes to parrot this stuff. John Zizioulas and the like wrapped up Greek nationalism in theological categories and construct this big metarrative that blames everything wrong with western Christianity on the Franks. It's the Orthodox equivalent of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade, frankly. One of these days, I'm going to write a western parody of it, just for the lulz.

    I think somebody like David Bentley Hart is much more reasonable here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
  15. archer75

    archer75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,328
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I'm only passingly familiar with Hart, but have meant to take a closer look. Is there one work you'd recommend?

    It seems there's a tinfoil hat brigade everywhere you go in Christianity. At least, everywhere I've been.
     
  16. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Any of them are good, though his work defending Christianity itself, Beauty of the Infinite, has some of the same weaknesses as C.S. Lewis's stuff- he tends to not take critics seriously enough. But as far as being fair to western Christians, he gets my approval.
     
  17. archer75

    archer75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,328
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    You just pushed Hart onto the back burner for me. I can't deal with Lewis as a Christian apologist. Maybe it was more relevant in its day and now the conversation has changed. But I just can't handle it.
     
  18. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 En cuanto lo hicisteis a uno de estos mis hermanos Supporter

    +9,328
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Pastor LOVES Lewis but Lewis' theology and apologetics for the most part simply does not survive Auschwitz. And that's damning in my mind. Lewis' good work, IMO, is A Grief Observed, and possibly the Narnia books, and maybe some of the stuff snipped from bits and pieces of his work. But the overall approach? No so great.
     
  19. archer75

    archer75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,328
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Huh. I guess they used the filioqueless version so everyone could agree.
     
  20. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    845
    +542
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    I'm Reformed because they agree with what I think, not the other way around. I'm not Lutheran, not Presbyterian --if anything, I'm Reformed Baptist but not really that either. One of my problems with Reformed theology is the necessity they seem to find in parsing meaning out too far, limiting by going too far, if that makes sense to say.

    The Creeds were done for several reasons, and they can be done very well, but care must be taken that they do not substitute for Scripture.

    I don't know Orthodox well enough to say much about it except that they seem to have more heart than mind involvement in their doctrines. Several things that Reformed theology parses, Orthodox doesn't bother to think about, assuming the simple truth of what Reformed theology goes to the trouble to point out. I could be wrong, but one example of that would be the Monergism vs Synergism debate.
     
Loading...