Filioque

[judechild]

I'd like to propose a classic debate: the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed. I'd be willing to debate either the historical validity of it, the theological validity, or both (preferably both). Since the theology of the Creed can get very complex, I'd suggest a 1200 word-limit per post, of about 3 or 4 rounds; that should keep things concise. If we do both history and theology, I'd recommend two clearly bifurcated sets of posts (i.e. three or four posts on the historical validity, and then three or four posts on the theological debate). I'm very flexible when it comes to the terms of the debate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sounds interesting; would you like me to promote it; and if so which forums?

 

[judechild]

Well, I thought I might wait a few days, then we can promote if need be.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, I thought I might wait a few days, then we can promote if need be.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'll be interested in debating this if we had some slightly more clear parameters.

 

[judechild]

That's someone I like - a person who likes clear perimeters. I think we'll get along.

What I propose in full:

Title: The Filioque
Prompt: The inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed is legitimate both in juridical and theological terms.

I would take the affirmative.

Bificated debate:
3 rounds on juridical legitimacy followed by 3 rounds on theological implications; total of 12 posts. (Possibly with a brief, mutually-agreed-upon introduction to the definition of the Filioque, to assist the studio audience).

Alternate posting; 1200 word limit-per-post

During the juridical section, since it will involve a lot of history, I'd request the Moderator to waive the rule that says outside source-material cannot exceed 20% of the post. During the theological section, the rule may apply.

The start-date of the debate is open to discussion. I recommend a week-long deadline between posts.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That's someone I like - a person who likes clear perimeters. I think we'll get along.

What I propose in full:

Title: The Filioque
Prompt: The inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed is legitimate both in juridical and theological terms.

I would take the affirmative.

Bificated debate:
3 rounds on juridical legitimacy followed by 3 rounds on theological implications; total of 12 posts. (Possibly with a brief, mutually-agreed-upon introduction to the definition of the Filioque, to assist the studio audience).

Alternate posting; 1200 word limit-per-post

During the juridical section, since it will involve a lot of history, I'd request the Moderator to waive the rule that says outside source-material cannot exceed 20% of the post. During the theological section, the rule may apply.

The start-date of the debate is open to discussion. I recommend a week-long deadline between posts.

The 20% rule is a legal thing; some sources have much more stringent limitations; give a 20% quote, provide a link to the source, and explain it concisely in your own words; that's the best that I can offer.

If one's source clearly states that it is in the "public domain", then there are no limitations... however long quotes limit the space for personal thoughts and expressions.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sounds good to me.

 

[judechild]

I never knew that was a legal thing, oh well.

I take it you'll answer the negative on both parts of the bifurcation, Arcangl86. Is there a particular date that would be convenient to begin?

 

[Arcangl86]

Since I'm arguing the negative, my preparation is kind of minimal, so we can start when you want to.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I will set this up.

I'm good with a mutually agreed upon definition; please feel free to work through it here, in this thread; and I will include it in the stipulations.

I admit that I'm a little bit surprised that it's a fellow Lutheran taking the negative. I will be most interested to follow this myself.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Below are the proposed stipulations. We need to decide on a few things;

• I have added one additional round for summations; if you guys don't like that idea, I will take it out.
• Jude Child suggested:

  (Possibly with a brief, mutually-agreed-upon introduction to the definition of the Filioque, to assist the studio audience)

  I can do this. I would suggest a link such is this: Filioque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
• The logical location for a Peanut Gallery is General Theology; I am good with providing up to three PG threads in appropriate forums; if either of you have suggestions; let me know.
• The start date.

I need confirmation from both participants before I open the debate and PG thread(s). Let me know if there are any additions, deletions or modifications that you would like.

1. Title: The Filioque
2. Topic: The inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed is legitimate both in juridical and theological terms.
3. judechild will betaking the affirmative postition; Arcangl86 will be taking the negative.
4. The structure of this debate will be as follows: Three alternating rounds discussing the juridical legitimacy of the Filioque (six posts total) followed by three alternating rounds discussing the theological legitimacy and implications of the Filioque (total of six more posts); one additional round of one post each for summations (a total of 14 posts for the two parts and the summation)
5. 1200 word limit-per-post.
6. Maximum time between posts will be one week from the time each post is approved (becomes visible)
7. Outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% copyright rule; providing links to the whole documents is always a good idea.
8. Start date; on or about _____________.

A peanut gallery will be located in General Theology.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sounds good to me, and I'm willing to start whenever my partner is.

 

[judechild]

That will be fine. I'll propose the 13th of this month as a starting date (this week will be very busy for me).

As for the introduction, this is my suggestion:

Included in the fruits of the first Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, the First Council of Nicaea, is the Nicaean Creed. This creed, known as the ''Symbol of Faith'' was approved by the bishops in AD 325, and was used primarily as a testament professed by adult converts to the faith before baptism. Over the course of the following decades, changes were made to the Symbol of Faith by several persons and councils, the most notable of these are several changes made by what has become known as the Second Ecumenical Council: the First Council of Constantinople, in AD 381. Among the additions made to the Symbol of Nicaea, was a much-expanded section on the Holy Spirit (which the Symbol of Nicaea barely mentions). The being of the Holy Spirit, in the newly-created Nicaea-Constanapolitan Creed, is said to ''procede from the Father.'' The newly reformulated Creed fulfilled the same function as its predecesor: primarily, it was used as a liturgical testament of faith before baptism.

''Filioque'' is a Latin phrase translated ''And the Son.'' It was a clause added to the Symbol of Nicaea-Constaninople by a Western council held in the Iberian city of Toledo in the 6th century. in the insuing centuries, it was incorporated into the Western profession of the Creed, but not the Eastern. As a result, the Western version of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople reads ''The Holy Spirit... proceeds from the Father and the Son,'' while the Eastern version reads ''The Holy Spirit... proceeds from the Father.''

[It would then be good to add links to the Nicaean Creed, and the Nicaea-Constantinoplitan Creed.]

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sounds good to me, and I'm willing to start whenever my partner is.

That will be fine. I'll propose the 13th of this month as a starting date (this week will be very busy for me).

As for the introduction, this is my suggestion:

Included in the fruits of the first Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, the First Council of Nicaea, is the Nicaean Creed. This creed, known as the ''Symbol of Faith'' was approved by the bishops in AD 325, and was used primarily as a testament professed by adult converts to the faith before baptism. Over the course of the following decades, changes were made to the Symbol of Faith by several persons and councils, the most notable of these are several changes made by what has become known as the Second Ecumenical Council: the First Council of Constantinople, in AD 381. Among the additions made to the Symbol of Nicaea, was a much-expanded section on the Holy Spirit (which the Symbol of Nicaea barely mentions). The being of the Holy Spirit, in the newly-created Nicaea-Constanapolitan Creed, is said to ''procede from the Father.'' The newly reformulated Creed fulfilled the same function as its predecesor: primarily, it was used as a liturgical testament of faith before baptism.

''Filioque'' is a Latin phrase translated ''And the Son.'' It was a clause added to the Symbol of Nicaea-Constaninople by a Western council held in the Iberian city of Toledo in the 6th century. in the insuing centuries, it was incorporated into the Western profession of the Creed, but not the Eastern. As a result, the Western version of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople reads ''The Holy Spirit... proceeds from the Father and the Son,'' while the Eastern version reads ''The Holy Spirit... proceeds from the Father.''

[It would then be good to add links to the Nicaean Creed, and the Nicaea-Constantinoplitan Creed.]

I'll set it up. Good job on the introduction; I'll see what I can find for links.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The debate thread is set up and is located here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7826594/#post65773866

Closing this thread; happy debating guys!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This proposal thread is now reopened; JudeChild is still seeking an opponent.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This proposal thread is now reopened; JudeChild is still seeking an opponent.

Posted a promotion thread in TAW here: Looking for someone to debate the Filioque...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Posted a promotion thread in TAW here: Looking for someone to debate the Filioque...

In light of the very negative response I got to this thread in TAW, I have closed it. I'm sorry that this did not work.

I am leaving this thread open for the time being; let's see if anything happens.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I have found another prospective opponent and have sent a PM; waiting for a response.