The Source of the Trinity

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,409
5,515
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟608,315.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The thing is, "principle", in Latin, means origin, and there is no possible way to get around that.
I don't speak for the Latins, however I can tell you that is not what Augustine was on about. I believe that the defence of the Filioque has led them into a number of errors (or at least positions that I cannot accept), including the one I indicated earlier. The trouble is if we spend all our time Latin bashing, then we will never put the Church back together as Jesus prayed for us on the night he was betrayed.
 
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
I don't speak for the Latins, however I can tell you that is not what Augustine was on about. I believe that the defence of the Filioque has led them into a number of errors (or at least positions that I cannot accept), including the one I indicated earlier. The trouble is if we spend all our time Latin bashing, then we will never put the Church back together as Jesus prayed for us on the night he was betrayed.
I'm not attacking Saint Augustine, I'm attacking the Filioque and its official theology. While Saint Augustine might have made some errors in his Triadology, he certainly would not have supported adding the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, especially with its intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not attacking Saint Augustine, I'm attacking the Filioque and its official theology. While Saint Augustine might have made some errors in his Triadology, he certainly would not have supported adding the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, especially with its intent.

What do you mean by 'triadology'?
 
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
The position of Augustine and Aquinas was to insist that the ultimate 'alpha point' or origin for the Holy Spirit is the Father
This is what Aquinas has to say in his commentary on the Filioque

For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in 27.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

jargew

Newbie
Aug 6, 2012
125
87
✟12,751.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Two things:


Great Info! Thanks you for your post.

I will read "On Incarnation, by St. Athanasius" as you suggested. I recently have been reading Augustine and Clement of Alexandria, and I think it's an oversight on the part of newer denominations not to study the early church. These guys were not only God-fearing men, but quite brilliant as well.


1. @Constantine the Sinner is not a Roman Catholic, or in communion with the Roman Catholic Church; indeed, this entire thread is actually largely built upon an Orthodox critique of Roman Catholic theology. However, the Orthodox churches do believe that we are exclusively the Catholic church, and the Eastern Orthodox of which @Constantine the Sinner is a member also have a good claim on being Roman, given that the five ancient archbishophrics of the eastern Mediterranean that people like to call the Greek Orthodox Church were really the church of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was very close to the Latin speaking Church of Rome until Rome was conquered by Charlemagne and subjected to political influences that divided the two churches.

2. Jesus Christ is the uncreated Word of God in His Divinity, who for our sakes condescended to assume our created human nature, saving and glorifying us by uniting us personally and hypostatically with the Godhead. This is why we call His birth the Incarnation, and why He is named Emanu-El, meaning God with us. He is not a creature, but He assumed a created nature, putting on our humanity without change, confusion, admixture or division. Indeed, in the writings of the church Fathers, the glory of the Incarnation is often expressed by referring to our Lord as "the God-man Jesus" because of His theandric nature (or his human and divine natures in hypostatic union, if you prefer Chalcedonian terminology).

It is entirely possible to discern this truth from the Scriptural text, and indeed, impossible to believe in a purely created Christ; if you read John 1:2-17, it becomes clear that the Word of God created all things, and ergo is not a creature, but became incarnate, putting on our created nature. As such, He is the firstborn of all creation, having put on created humanity while Himself being uncreated, begotten and not made.

This is the only logical and reasonable answer, and is the belief of the Christian church, as expressed in the Nicene Creed (the Statement of Faith for this site).

St. Athanasius was the fourth century bishop who was horribly persecuted for defending this doctrine against the evil heretic Arius and the vicious sons of Emperor St. Constantine who lacked the saintliness of their Father and instead embraced Arianism, having been tutored by the infamous Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. St. Athanasius also is the originator of our New Testament canon; he was the first bishop to list the twenty seven books that were to be universally accepted as canonical, resolving what had been a disputed question for several decades (many earlier attempts at a canon either omitted Revelations, Hebrews, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and other books, and/or included dubious psuedepigraphical works like 1 Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas, or included works that were doctrinally correct but not of apostolic origin, like 1 Clement, or included books of church order like the Didascalia that St. Athanasius reckoned should remain outside of the defined canon of sacred scripture, being subject to revision according to pastoral need, and in some respects already obsolete or only locally applicable).

Every time you read the New Testament, you should think of St. Athanasius, because he edited it; the Table of Contents is his crowning accomplishment.

And he explained the mystery of the Incarnation thus:

"God became man so that we might become god" "becoming sons of God through adoption" "by grace what Christ is by nature"

This is the apostolic faith, as a reading of the works of earlier Patristic figures such as St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen will confirm.

It also allows us to understand, without resorting to Mormon polytheism, difficult passages like "know ye not that ye are gods?", "be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," et cetera.

I suggest you read the book St. Athanasius wrote on the subject, entitled On the Incarnation. It is readily available for free from many websites right across the Internet, translated into English. At least one has a nice introduction by CS Lewis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
One of the the Problems with the trinity doctrine is that there is no Bible verse that affirms the Catholic and Orthodox belief that these 3 relationships are ONE exclusively. The ONLY Bible verse [included in the KJV-1 John 5:6-8] that refers to this oneness is omitted in Bibles like the NIV and ASV because there are no Greek words in the Inter-linears [See Berry's for example] to support its inclusion. There simply exists no other Scriptural support for the exclusive Oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!!
It's as much a Protestant as a Roman Catholic or Orthodox belief. But the idea that the Trinity is not be accepted only because there is not a single verse that defines it seems ridiculous to me. It's unavoidable if we consider the testimony of the rest of Scripture, and you want to discard all of that because of a personal opinion that unless it's all encapsulated in a single verse...it's not true??
 
Upvote 0

jargew

Newbie
Aug 6, 2012
125
87
✟12,751.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One of the the Problems with the trinity doctrine is that there is no Bible verse that affirms the Catholic and Orthodox belief that these 3 relationships are ONE exclusively.

Actually the following two verses indicate the trinity are separate entities:

John 14:26 ESV /
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Matthew 3:16-17 ESV
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
 
Upvote 0

jeager016

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2015
444
177
Retired police/retired engineer
✟9,200.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
These debates serve to remind me why Christianity has so many denominations
all reading the same Book.:oldthumbsup:
So which denomination is the right denomination?????
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there

Someone pleeeease explain which one is the right one?
The Catholic denomination started out as the catholic denomination.
Small case "c" in catholic meant "universal".
Curious what?
So which one is the right, correct, true, denomination?
Some, like the J.W's, call their denomination the "TRUTH".
Members say "we are in the Truth".
A bold claim?????
Inquiring minds don'cha'know?:D

Westboro Baptists preach hate in the name of "god".
Some Pentacostals play with rattlesnakes to demonstrate faith.
Some get bitten and refuse medical intervention as a demonstration
of faith.
Some die as a result of snake bites and members say "god" called
the dead guy to heaven.
Really?
Faith or stupidity?
J.W.'s DIE, let their children DIE, rather than accept a blood transfusion or
organ transplant.
I think the Governing Body of J.W.'s has made a transfusion or transplant
a "matter of conscious" now.
What about those that died in previous decades?????
Inquiring mind don'cha'know?
Bible interpretation and religious dogma.
Wow.
All this ^^^ is why I refuse to join a church or claim a denomination.
I am a Christian.
I have my own beliefs and don't want to join a church as such.
I pray daily and am grateful for my life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible has always been clear that Jesus and the Spirit are One, yet Two...

Isaiah 48:16 - The Son says the Father has sent Him and the Spirit together. Read the context of the passage.

Luke 11:49 – Jesus clearly refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Wisdom of God.”

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 "Now the Lord is the Spirit...For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." This clearly says the Son and the Spirit are One.

Acts 16:6-7 Uses the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ interchangeably. See also Romans 8:1-17


Those taught directly, or only a generation or two removed from the Apostles taught the same teaching...

Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch 15 - Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr: It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God.

Theophilus: God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things.

Tertullian: Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit.

I have scores of quotes, but I will spare you the long reading. Unless you are prepared to call Paul, Luke, Ignatius, Clement, Justin, Theophilus and many others heretics, they believed the Word and Wisdom were together as the Son of God. They are One, but they are also distinct in their own Personhood. Both participated in creation (Proverbs 8:22ff, and John 1), but as One. Adam represented Christ, and Eve represented the Church and Spirit as the bride of Christ (many quotes on this, too.) As Adam and Eve were one flesh yet two, so the Son and Spirit were One yet Two.

Answer to your original question: Word and Wisdom were begotten of the Father. The Spirit/Church was the body of Christ and still is to this day.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't fit with the later writers' teachings, so we refuse to believe it, since it doesn't fit our present day theology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The Athanasian Creed is a forgery. Saint Athanasius did not author it anymore than Saint Constantine authored the Donation of Constantine.

For that matter, the Apostles' Creed wasn't written by the apostles. Is that a "forgery" as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not attacking Saint Augustine, I'm attacking the Filioque and its official theology. While Saint Augustine might have made some errors in his Triadology, he certainly would not have supported adding the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, especially with its intent.

Especially insofar as St. Augustine was on record as supporting the Council of Ephesus, and likened the heresy of Pelagianism to Nestorianism in order to explain it, calling it a sort of soteriological Nestorianism (which is true insofar as Pelagiusndivided the human efforts towards salvation from God resulting in monergism; most Nestorian theologies have also coincidentally inclined towards monergism, the Church of the East historically favouring apokatastasis). That council adopted the canon forbidding unauthorized modifications of the creed.

This is what Aquinas has to say in his commentary on the Filioque

For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in 27.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

Herein we see where Aquinas departs most dramatically from Orthodoxy; there has recently been some very good scholarship on compatibility between Thomism and Orthodoxy, including a book on Orthodox readings of Aquinas, however, the aforementioned passage is undeniably and inextricably heretical.

I for my part have no desire to reconcile Orthodoxy with the "angelic Doctor," his philosophy, based on an Islamic commentary of the Arabic translation of Aristotle produced under duress by the Syriac Orthodox monks of my church, is worthless as an intellectual system, scholasticism being completely unable to cope with advances in the natural scineces due to its preconceived ideas about "substance" taken from the primitive understanding of Aristotle; his theology inclines towards incompatibility with the Greek fathers, who seemed to prefer Plato, but who cannot be honestly accused of Platonism (Patristic theology as summarized by St. John of Damascus amounts to a comprehensive and considered rejection of Platonism as a whole, Gnosticism being the Platonic or neo-Platonic religion par excellence); his work can be known as evil by its fruits, in that his intellectual justification for the barbaric institution of the auto da fe presided over by his corrupted Dominican Order (although never, contrary to legend, by St. Dominic, who actually did not direct his followers to burn people); Thomas Aquinas is indirectly the architect of the depraved deism of Voltaire which arose in reaction to the grotesque hideousness of Scholasticism and religious persecution, which was transplanted into Protestantism and made even more vile by Calvin.

The Summa is worthless as a doctrinal encyclopedia, because the Roman Church already had the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene. The fact that Scholastic theology required a new work to serve as a sort of replacement for St. John of Damascus should have warned them how far off the path they had travelled. But instead, they kept going. And in turn, Calvin's Institutes represents an evolution and the apex of the process of the theological distortion that began with the outbreak of Scholasticism in Benedictine monasteries.

I have seen Thomas Aquinas likened to St. Gregory Palamas, and presented as a figure with compatible views and of equivalent importance, but I think this is completely wrong; Thomism is incompatible with Palamism. What is more, the corupus of St. Gregory Palamas as received by the Church into Holy Tradition consists primarily of his defense of the Hesychasts on Mount Athos against Barlaam, who was attacking them from a crypto-Roman Catholic perspective and who ultimately converted to Catholicism when the Orthodox accepted the argument of St. Gregory on the essence/energies distinction. St. Gregory does not define a new theological model for Orthodoxy but merely explains and justifies the established monastic discipline, going back to St. Anthony, which Barlaam sought to discredit, hence the continuity between St. Gregory and earlier writers one finds in the Philokalia.

Ecumenical reconciliation with Rome essentially requires us to develop an Orthodox reading of Aquinas, but what this amounts to is an instruction to the Catholics on how to save face by ostensibly retaining the less odious parts of the Summa; a corrective commentary if you will which would salvage the useful bits, just as the Cappadocian Fathers salvaged the useful works of Origen in their Philocalia (not to be confused with the 18th century Philokalia of Sts. Nicodemus and Macarius of Athos); the Philocalia is an anthology of the useful writings of Origen with the detestable portions regarding reincarnation et cetera despised of by the likes of St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius of Salamis, carefully removed.
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
For that matter, the Apostles' Creed wasn't written by the apostles. Is that a "forgery" as well?

Of course not. I am surprised an Orthodox member would object to psuedepigrapha given how much of it forms our sacred tradition, for example, the works piously attributed by an unknown fifth century theologian to St. Dionysius the Aeropagite (some in turn piously try to claim St. Dionysius actually wrote the great corpus of apophatic mystical theology, but given the paucity of extra-scriptural writings from the First Century church and the broad attestation of what does exist, like 1 Clement and the Ignatian epistles, which are of central importance to the Orthodox faith, this seems very unlikely, but I believe we can say with certainty that St. Dionysius, being a well educated Athenian aware of the limits of epistemology, would certainly have agreed with, and probably actively believed in, that which psuedo-Dionysius taught, because the writings of psuedo-Dionysius agree with and were accepted uncontroversially into the apostolic tradition of the Church).
 
Upvote 0

Paul Yohannan

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2016
3,886
1,587
43
Old Route 66
✟34,744.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
These debates serve to remind me why Christianity has so many denominations
all reading the same Book.:oldthumbsup:
So which denomination is the right denomination?????
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there

Someone pleeeease explain which one is the right one?
The Catholic denomination started out as the catholic denomination.
Small case "c" in catholic meant "universal".
Curious what?
So which one is the right, correct, true, denomination?
Some, like the J.W's, call their denomination the "TRUTH".
Members say "we are in the Truth".
A bold claim?????
Inquiring minds don'cha'know?:D

Westboro Baptists preach hate in the name of "god".
Some Pentacostals play with rattlesnakes to demonstrate faith.
Some get bitten and refuse medical intervention as a demonstration
of faith.
Some die as a result of snake bites and members say "god" called
the dead guy to heaven.
Really?
Faith or stupidity?
J.W.'s DIE, let their children DIE, rather than accept a blood transfusion or
organ transplant.
I think the Governing Body of J.W.'s has made a transfusion or transplant
a "matter of conscious" now.
What about those that died in previous decades?????
Inquiring mind don'cha'know?
Bible interpretation and religious dogma.
Wow.
All this ^^^ is why I refuse to join a church or claim a denomination.
I am a Christian.
I have my own beliefs and don't want to join a church as such.
I pray daily and am grateful for my life.

According to the Statement of Faith of CF.com and according to the Nicene Creed which the vast majority of the worlds Christians accept, the J/Ws are not a Christian denomination, They are, to be precise, Arian heretics who also espouse Chiliasm. A different religion, dating from the early fourth century.

The reason why they are not Christian btw is because of their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of those 33,000 or so denominations, most have like 20 members, or are in communion with others, for example, Congregationalist churches which are self governing an indepenedent; most city has one or more "Community Church" and these are ostensibly non-denominational evangelical, but are reckoned as denominations.

The majority of Christians are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or members of the major Protestant denominations and movements which are broadly speaking in fellowship with each other (Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and so on), although distressingly, the fastest growing churches are Pentecostal denominations and Calvinist or Evangelical "non denominational" churches which reject the magisterial Protestant tradition and which are not participating in the ecumenical process (as represented by the World Council of Churches and other bodies). This trend has been accelerated by the spread of liberal theology in most of the mainline Protestant churches, with the exception of a lucky few like the PCA, the LCMS, and so on (who are, by virtue of their traditionalism, not called "mainline", but they were considered "mainline" a few decades ago; the African and South American plants of the mainline churches, such as the Anglican "Global South", remain solidly traditional).
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?
I believe this terminology can lead to misunderstanding. The triune Godhead has existed from eternity past. But within the Godhead, there is a hierarchy. And Scripture is quite clear that BOTH the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to earth.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;... But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(John 14:16,26).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
For that matter, the Apostles' Creed wasn't written by the apostles. Is that a "forgery" as well?
It is when its appeal is based largely on the authorship. Hence why I compared it to the Donation of Constantine. During the Filioque controversy, The Athanasian Creed was used profusely by Latinists as an appeal to the authority of Athanasius, whose deliberations were integral to the Nicene Creed, and is strongly associated with its authorship, and therefore a powerful Father to appeal to in matters of alteration.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
Of course not. I am surprised an Orthodox member would object to psuedepigrapha given how much of it forms our sacred tradition, for example, the works piously attributed by an unknown fifth century theologian to St. Dionysius the Aeropagite (some in turn piously try to claim St. Dionysius actually wrote the great corpus of apophatic mystical theology, but given the paucity of extra-scriptural writings from the First Century church and the broad attestation of what does exist, like 1 Clement and the Ignatian epistles, which are of central importance to the Orthodox faith, this seems very unlikely, but I believe we can say with certainty that St. Dionysius, being a well educated Athenian aware of the limits of epistemology, would certainly have agreed with, and probably actively believed in, that which psuedo-Dionysius taught, because the writings of psuedo-Dionysius agree with and were accepted uncontroversially into the apostolic tradition of the Church).
No Orthodox is going to use pseudo-Dionysius as a source in an argument over whether the essence-energies distinction is Church doctrine, at least not today, and if someone did, you can well imagine that Catholics who objected to the doctrine would quickly jump on them for it. No doubt he's an extremely valuable and holy teacher, but I wouldn't use him as a source to prove the essence-energies distinctions to the non-Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
Especially insofar as St. Augustine was on record as supporting the Council of Ephesus, and likened the heresy of Pelagianism to Nestorianism in order to explain it, calling it a sort of soteriological Nestorianism (which is true insofar as Pelagiusndivided the human efforts towards salvation from God resulting in monergism; most Nestorian theologies have also coincidentally inclined towards monergism, the Church of the East historically favouring apokatastasis). That council adopted the canon forbidding unauthorized modifications of the creed.



Herein we see where Aquinas departs most dramatically from Orthodoxy; there has recently been some very good scholarship on compatibility between Thomism and Orthodoxy, including a book on Orthodox readings of Aquinas, however, the aforementioned passage is undeniably and inextricably heretical.

I for my part have no desire to reconcile Orthodoxy with the "angelic Doctor," his philosophy, based on an Islamic commentary of the Arabic translation of Aristotle produced under duress by the Syriac Orthodox monks of my church, is worthless as an intellectual system, scholasticism being completely unable to cope with advances in the natural scineces due to its preconceived ideas about "substance" taken from the primitive understanding of Aristotle; his theology inclines towards incompatibility with the Greek fathers, who seemed to prefer Plato, but who cannot be honestly accused of Platonism (Patristic theology as summarized by St. John of Damascus amounts to a comprehensive and considered rejection of Platonism as a whole, Gnosticism being the Platonic or neo-Platonic religion par excellence); his work can be known as evil by its fruits, in that his intellectual justification for the barbaric institution of the auto da fe presided over by his corrupted Dominican Order (although never, contrary to legend, by St. Dominic, who actually did not direct his followers to burn people); Thomas Aquinas is indirectly the architect of the depraved deism of Voltaire which arose in reaction to the grotesque hideousness of Scholasticism and religious persecution, which was transplanted into Protestantism and made even more vile by Calvin.

The Summa is worthless as a doctrinal encyclopedia, because the Roman Church already had the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene. The fact that Scholastic theology required a new work to serve as a sort of replacement for St. John of Damascus should have warned them how far off the path they had travelled. But instead, they kept going. And in turn, Calvin's Institutes represents an evolution and the apex of the process of the theological distortion that began with the outbreak of Scholasticism in Benedictine monasteries.

I have seen Thomas Aquinas likened to St. Gregory Palamas, and presented as a figure with compatible views and of equivalent importance, but I think this is completely wrong; Thomism is incompatible with Palamism. What is more, the corupus of St. Gregory Palamas as received by the Church into Holy Tradition consists primarily of his defense of the Hesychasts on Mount Athos against Barlaam, who was attacking them from a crypto-Roman Catholic perspective and who ultimately converted to Catholicism when the Orthodox accepted the argument of St. Gregory on the essence/energies distinction. St. Gregory does not define a new theological model for Orthodoxy but merely explains and justifies the established monastic discipline, going back to St. Anthony, which Barlaam sought to discredit, hence the continuity between St. Gregory and earlier writers one finds in the Philokalia.

Ecumenical reconciliation with Rome essentially requires us to develop an Orthodox reading of Aquinas, but what this amounts to is an instruction to the Catholics on how to save face by ostensibly retaining the less odious parts of the Summa; a corrective commentary if you will which would salvage the useful bits, just as the Cappadocian Fathers salvaged the useful works of Origen in their Philocalia (not to be confused with the 18th century Philokalia of Sts. Nicodemus and Macarius of Athos); the Philocalia is an anthology of the useful writings of Origen with the detestable portions regarding reincarnation et cetera despised of by the likes of St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius of Salamis, carefully removed.
An Orthodox reading of Aquinas isn't possible, it's not just doctrinal difficulties, it's that mindset isn't Patristic, it's Scholastic. He is, however, a fascinating theologian, but I read him for the same reasons I read Muslim theologians or atheistic philosophers. His system of thought was the chief impetus behind The Divine Comedy.
 
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
I believe this terminology can lead to misunderstanding. The triune Godhead has existed from eternity past. But within the Godhead, there is a hierarchy. And Scripture is quite clear that BOTH the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to earth.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;... But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(John 14:16,26).
This thread is about who causes the Holy Spirit to exist. Eternally.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

younglite

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
138
30
58
✟16,070.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This thread is about who causes the Holy Spirit to exist. Eternally.

My apologies if my contributions to this thread are not pertinent to what you wish to discuss. I thought they were related. As a seeker of truth, I am curious as to whether you are avoiding the subordination issue, or whether you don't hold the earliest fathers' teaching in high regard. All the best to you.
 
Upvote 0