Recently Pope Francis declared that the death penalty is a punishment that is inadmissible for Roman Catholics. While surely this is not the end of the world when it pertains to theology, it is nevertheless a strange position given both its approval in the Scriptures and the Roman Catholic Church endorsing executions historically.
Nevertheless, the significant point at issue is that the Roman Catholic epistemology, which hinges upon the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. This infallibility is, for all practical intents and purposes, meaningless.
A Roman Catholic with a straight face may say because the Bishop of Rome did not explicitly state that his newest teaching on the death penalty is a matter of faith and morals and that he binds this upon all the faithful by virtue of him exercising the prerogatives of the Apostle Peter, that therefore this teaching is not infallible and it does not put into disrepute the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue.
The preceding sentence is a mouthful and extremely convoluted. This is because the actual steps necessary that a Pope must take to say something “infallible” is so extreme and debatable that even Roman Catholic scholars are not sure how many allegedly infallible statements have been made.
While the preceding definitely does not disprove the ecclesiological claims of the Roman Catholic Church, it does show that the Bishop of Rome’s infallibility does not actually help address the issue of epistemological uncertainty–so if you are wondering what my axe to grind here is, this is it.
The Bishop of Rome hardly ever answers unequivocally any important question. Further, if a Bishop of Rome actually went through all of the criteria to unequivocally make a supposedly infallible moral or theological teaching, it is also Roman Catholic teaching that a bishop of Rome ceases to be Pope the moment he teaches heresy! A simpleton can see that Roman claims are completely unable to be verified.
The search for epistemological certainty is ultimately and idol. It seems clear to me that we’re always at God’s mercy. We are all feeble in our understanding and that includes the leaders of our churches. We must pray to God for wisdom and also pray for our Bishops. All of us must exercise humility in our truth claims and not be so confident of our superiority over others.
___
This article was originally dictated into my phone, hence the typos. My apologies.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Craig–
I genuinely feel sorry for conservative Catholics. Here’s something RC apologist Tim Staples said just a couple of years ago:
*******************
I pointed out what too many Catholics simply do not know: The death penalty has always been, and always will be, upheld as a legitimate and potentially just punishment in Catholic Tradition as well as in Scripture.
This teaching CANNOT change.
Genesis 9:6 says, for example, ‘He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God created man in his own image.’
The Catchism of the Council of Trent teaches under the heading of ‘The Fifth Commandment’:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”
********************
Well, now it HAS BEEN changed. In fact, they will be editing the Catechism of the Catholic Church to bring it in line with this innovation!
All that keeps RC theology from completely unraveling (since they have embraced higher criticism) is the inviolability of Tradition. Looks like that’s coming to an end.
That’s from Trent? Jeez. But like I referred to in the article, the RCs already have their apology for it…the catechism is not infallible. And, even if it were, perhaps we are all interpreting the infallible statement wrong because we ourselves are fallible. In reality, the idea of infallibility just kicks the can down the road–it actually does not philosophically settle any issue.
Craig–
I just wanted to add that you are so right that “pride goeth before a fall.” I am no admirer of RC/EO epistemologies, but Sola Scriptura certainly doesn’t keep Evangelicals invulnerable to the Spirit of the Age. As we speak, we have groups repeating history by unwisely esconcing themselves in worldly forms of social justice. Consequently, they are drifting leftward.
No system we might develop will keep us impervious to the specter of innovation. Constant vigilance and prayer and accountability are absolutely mandatory!
Agreed. One thing I appreciate about the EO prayer rule is that several of the prayers dwell on this subject.
The Orthodox Church also opposes the death penalty.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
I don’t think we have a unilateral statement on this, but a few comments.
1. I am not taking a stance for or against the death penalty, so the EO can be against it and that is fine with me.
2. Orthodoxy does not have a history of endorsing violent persecutions where heresy gets the death penalty. RCism and Protestantism have a history of it, and in fact, I even got **banned** from a Facebook groun in 2016 (!) for saying it was wrong to **execute** people for heresy. So, the Pope’s changing of the catechism surely rocks some of the sacralist types among the conservative circles of RCism. As for the Theonomists among the Protestants, they were always a lost cause. 🙂
The scriptures do not approve of the death penalty. It comes from Augustine of Hippo, not from Jesus Christ, and is the historic heretical position of the arch-heretic, Thomas Aquinas. After Arius, the second most heretical theologian was Aquinas, who called the pagan polytheist Aristotle “The Philosopher”. The Scripture says, “Where is the philosopher, the wise man of this age? Hath not God made foolish (by the foolishness of the Cross), the wisdom of the world? The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God”. Those who support capital punishment are Calvinists, (and Papists), not Orthodox Christians. It is the old Anselmian penal substitutionary atonement and propitiation of God’s wrath heresy.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Are you talking about Augustinian just war theory? That’s different than the death penalty. And I am pretty sure my priest is in favor of capital punishment 😉
There is no question the Scriptures acknowledges that capital punishment is to be used in certain cases for those who murder. This is the first law given to mankind after the flood (Genesis 9:5-6) and throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament. Avery Cardinal Dulles, no proponent of capital punishment, had an article in First Things about 20 some years ago. In it he was very clear that the Bible and throughout Church history capital punishment was always recognized as a right to be used by proper authority. Dulles also wrote that if the Church ever stated that the Death Penalty could never be used it would cause a loss of credibility in the Church’s Magisterium.
The problem as I see it is with the wording “always inadmissible”. Does that mean that no matter how many people one murders, children included, he still keeps his life? Is that fair and just? Also, if the convicted murder gets life in prison and murders fellow inmates, prison guards, and puts hits for those on the outside (all these things have happened), he still gets to keep his life? By knowing the day and time of his execution, the murderer is given mercy in that he has time to repent, see a chaplain, etc., a mercy not given to his many victims.
Of course the Scriptures affirms capital punishment – starting with Genesis 9: 5-6 and throughout the Bible. In fact, the death penalty for pre-meditated murder the only law found in all five books of the Torah. The Church has supported it throughout its history.
As far as I know, Orthodoxy has no definitive stance on capital punishment, either presently or historically.
Craig? What say you?
Well, Orthodoxy is against killing. Period. Priests can lose their jobs if they kill someone in a car accident (priests cannot have blood on their hands.) Bishops have drivers for this reason.
Orthodoxy has not executed people for unbelief or spread the faith by the sword (which, ironically Muslims, RCs, and to **some** extent even Protestants are guilty of.)
However, I am unaware of any teaching of the state not being able to employ capital punishment. So, Scott will need to quote a council to make good on that big of a claim!
Good old Catholic bashing in the Protestant style! When are you guys going to be rid of your addiction?
I don’t think it is bashing, I even said it has nothing with disproving Roman Catholicism–rather, I am questioning the sort of epistemological certainty people claim.
Craig,
As you know, there is not a hell of a lot by way of dogma in the church. That is definitely held to be infallible teaching.
Something that is included in the Catechism not necessarily so.
People want an easy yes/no answer, and that is not always available in matters of faith.
Things like once saved always saved and Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura are an attempt to simplify matters and provide certainty where in fact there is none.
?epistemology with do to have thisWhat does
Craig–
That sounds rather Yoda-esque!
I assume you meant:
“What does epistemology have to do with this?”
Yeah
What does th9s have to do with epistemology
W & S–
It is just this sort of doctrinal flexibility that C. S. Lewis decried in explaining why he could never become a Catholic:
“And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you (Catholics) is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, BUT TO ACCEPT IN ADVANCE ANY DOCTRINE YOUR CHURCH HEREAFTER PRODUCES. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say.”
Hans,
He was quite right to see that, because this is how it is. What he failed to see was that this applies to the Anglican or any other communion. I would not be surprised if he would not be appalled to see the way the Anglican church has gone with women priests and bishops, divorce and remarriage, acceptance of the gay lifestyle, actively gay clergy, etc, etc.
The way I see it it is just an excuse.
Could you elaborate on how this applies to Orthodox Christianity? When I became Orthodox, I agreed to certain dogma given to me by the Church. What sort of doctrines do we Orthodox have, for example, that didn’t exist or were even argued against say, 1000 years ago?
I know the question is addressed towards me, but I think we can at least argue there are a few:
A thousand years ago, the Western churches did not believe in the single procession of the Holy Spirit.
Palamasism did not exist. However, it was not explicitly contradicted either, simply because Palamas was addressing a philosophical debate pertaining to Aristotelianism and how it was conceived during his time period.
John,
I was not thinking of the Orthodox church in particular.
When people became Christians in the early church for example, they did so on the basis of their faith, very often a simple faith of uneducated people, and they did not need to consider dogma that would later be proclaimed, such as the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, etc.
The question was addressed to W&S who claimed all communions require assent to not only what is currently taught, but also what will be taught in the future. I asked him for clarification with regards to Orthodoxy.
John,
As above, in a few words.
W&S–
From what a I recall, CS Lewis did not consider himself a Protestant. He tended more toward Anglo-Catholicism and saw himself as part of the “Via Media” (middle way) between RC’ism and Prot’ism. Remember, he talked a lot about “mere Christianity.”
In the whole quote (of which I cited just a small portion) he speaks of Protestantism as a desert which has lost many crucial tenets: creation ex nihilo, the miracles, the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the historicity of the Resurrection. According to him, Catholicism was just the opposite, smothering the essence of Christianity in what he called “a jungle” of non-Apostolic innovations: Marian devotions, indulgences, papal infallibility, etc.
Hans,
Non apostolic to the blind.
John–
If W&S is inferring that “all communions” expect adherence to future pronouncements, that is certainly incorrect of the Reformed.
Our motto of “Semper Reformanda” (always reforming) is actually a call to resist all change and hearken back to Scripture over and over and over again. The Reformed theologians at Old Princeton (Princeton Theological Seminary before it went liberal) prided themselves on “never having taught anything new.”
Hans,
You’ve got to be kidding. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Once saved always saved, etc, these are all 16th century Protestant innovations. Things which were not believed, practised or taught for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
W/S–
Lewis was a respected medievalist, and I would trust him to spot evidence of “non-Apostolic innovations” long before you or I.
Alister McGrath, an Anglican theologian approvingly quoted by many Catholic apologists, states that Sola Fide was NOT an innovation by Luther, but a rediscovery of the biblical sense of justification. His book, “Iustitia Dei” (The Justice of God), traces the history of the doctrine of justification in minute detail.
If the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura, they sure acted like they did, quoting Bible front, right, and center throughout their polemics with pagans and heretics.
Once again, I don’t believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved” though I do believe in the Perseverance of the Elect, as did Augustine and Aquinas and almost every other major Catholic theologian through the centuries.
Hans,
Whatever Alister Mcgrath had to say, the church never taught it in the last 2000 years.
Church teaching is rife with scripture quotations, that does not mean Sola Scriptura is or was ever taught by the church, it never was. Which is why Luther had to bring it in. And why Protestants and Catholics have argued about this ever since.
Neither is scripturally sustainable.
I quoted McGrath to you and he explicitly said that imputed righteousness was a theological novum…
W & S–
And as for these charges of “bashing,” what exactly is your point? I actually admire the Roman Church, in being as ancient as it is, for remaining fairly consistent in terms of doctrine. Mainstream Protestantism is far, far, far worse.
I even mostly agree with Francis on capital punishment. (Well, I’m more in agreement with JP II, but I’m not pro-death penalty like most Evangelicals. I’ve never understood the stereotypical stance. It seems anti-grace to push such an agenda.)
But if you want to hold to claims of infallibility, you’ve got to oppose Francis’ actions in this case. (And good Catholics are allowed to gainsay papal teaching when it is out of line with historical precedent. In fact, many conservative Catholics are doing just that, calling this edit of the Catechism a “break with Tradition.” Some going so far as to term it “material heresy.”
You have a choice it would seem: reject this teaching or reject infallibility. You cannot logically keep both. (It’s not anti-Catholic to expect you all to be consistent!)
Hans,
As I say, you do not understand what infallibility means. This statement by Francis is not by any means infallible. Whether it is accepted or not is not what makes it infallible. It carries a certain authority coming from the pope, that is all. And clearly this will have its detractors. I for one am not clear that the church should go this far, but I “ponder on these things”, I don’t have to make up my mind here and now. I’ll see how this all develops over time in practice.
Hans,
You say: “You have a choice it would seem: reject this teaching or reject infallibility. ”
That is a classic Protestant either/or dichotomy. Under scrutiny, it evaporates.
I have no clue what you mean by a “classic Protestant either-or dichotomy.”
Protestant theology incorporates antinomies and paradoxes and mysteries all the time. Conversely, Catholicism is philosophically Western and frequently employs the Law of Non-contradiction and other components of a decidedly either-or logic.
There’s no basic difference between our respective sides on this account.
Hans,
This is an extract of an article (I think I might have got the link from a contributor on this site) that expresses what I mean:
“The Reformation upheld the biblical teaching of Psalm 115:1, “Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory..” All the credit, all the glory, all the praise, goes to God for our salvation.
The assumption I’m referring to is the belief that if man plays a role in his salvation, which the Catholic Church certainly teaches, then “the inevitable conclusion is that God gets praise, but so do human beings.” What’s assumed here is that if we include a human role in salvation, we necessarily exclude God. Even if man’s role is only 1%, God’s role is necessarily reduced to 99%. If we want God to be properly glorified, then man must necessarily be excluded from being responsible for salvation.
But consider further what’s being assumed here. What’s being assumed, even for Christians, is a fundamental opposition between God and man, where what is my good work is not God’s good work. My good works and my cooperation with grace are mine, not God’s, since, the assumption goes, the Catholic Church robs God of glory by including a Christian’s good works in salvation. The good works of the saints are theirs, not God’s, since the Catholic Church robs God of glory by including those works in the salvation of others. If including a human role in salvation robs God of glory, then that human role must not itself be God’s work. If it were God’s work, then, of course, it wouldn’t be robbing God of glory to include it in salvation.
What’s assumed is an either/or way of thinking wherein either God is doing the work, or I am. Either God is responsible for my salvation, or I am. Thus, to properly glorify God, we must say that God is responsible for salvation, not man.
It’s certainly true that apart from grace, man is only ever doomed to compete with God for glory. Apart from grace, there remains a fundamental opposition between God and man, an enmity born of man’s pride. Apart from grace, man’s work is man’s work and God’s work is God’s work, and ne’er the twain shall meet. That’s true, so long as we exclude grace from the picture.
But grace is not excluded from the picture. Grace isn’t even merely a part of the picture. Grace is the picture. Grace is the very thing that demolishes this either/or opposition between God and man.
This is the gospel proclaimed, in fact, by the Person of Christ, for in Christ, God and man are united in harmonious fellowship. In Christ, our humanity does not compete with divinity for glory. In Christ, our humanity is not fundamentally opposed to divinity. In Christ, our humanity does not stake out territory to the exclusion of divinity. No, the Incarnation shows us the demolition of that former reality. It shows us a humanity in perfect harmony with divinity, a humanity whose thoughts, words, and actions are the thoughts, words, and actions of God.
II.
This is why the Catholic Church sees no opposition between God’s glory and including our good works in salvation, or between God’s glory and including the communion of saints in salvation. From the Catholic perspective, including them in our salvation does not rob God of glory, because they are His works through us.http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2018/07/on-denying-the-gospel-for-the-sake-of-gods-glory/“
W&S–
Either the Catholic Church was correct when it promoted capital punishment (more or less describing it as redemptive) or is correct now that they have switched to an opposite view that it is an offense against the dignity of man. Both cannot be true; they’re contradictory. The current position cannot be a legitimate development of the former view. Acorns don’t develop into maple trees.
Therefore, you have two choices:
1. The church up till now was mistaken on the topic, and Francis has set it straight.
2. Francis is mistaken and should be called out for the error on his part.
Hans,
There is no fundamental problem with this state of affairs, infallibility is not in question, and the Holy Spirit guides the church into the fullness of the truth. Whether you or I are in a position to fully understand the implications of either position is debatable, I am happy to “ponder upon these things” till I can see clearly where the truth lies.
W&S–
I thought I had already responded to CK concerning the Jeremy De Haan article, but I haven’t been feeling well, so perhaps I didn’t finish it or didn’t post it.
It’s not as if God has one “Glory” pie and he selfishly grabs it all up for himself. It’s not THAT kind of an either-or! Protestants have no problem with righteous believers from the past being honored for their holiness. We have no problem with even ourselves being recognized for conformity to God’s will. That’s not what this is about.
There is, however, a type of honor, a type of glory, that is reserved for God alone.
There is what is called a Creator/creature distinction that Catholicism itself has never had a problem embracing.
Worship, for example, is addressed to God and God alone. You cannot worship God 364 days a year and St. Hildegard of Bingen on the 365th! That robs God of His own Glory. In other words, we don’t “rob God of glory” when we earn adulation…but we rob God of GOD’S glory–his own exclusive adulation–whenever we bow to anything created in a way we ought to bow to God alone! (In this way, we CANNOT be satisfied to give him a whopping 99% and somebody else a paltry 1%. May it never be!! Whenever he deserves it all, he should get it all!!)
This is an “either-or,” as you say. But it is an “either-or” that historically, Catholicism has had no problem with.
When it comes to justification (in the Protestant sense), we have no choice but to ascribe it all to God (even as Catholics ascribe 100% of “initial justification” to God).
As far as I can see, the problem comes in because Catholicism refuses to analyze the whole salvation process and thus divide it into the following:
A. What God alone does for us as his pure gift of love.
AND
B. What we do in cooperation with this grace, so richly bestowed upon us.
(A. is “justification” in Protestant parlance…and B. is “sanctification.”)
These terms come in handy in talking about the salvation process. It’s not as if justification doesn’t sanctify in some sense or that sanctification doesn’t justify in some sense. And it’s not as if it’s not one seemless, progressive process. But even seemless processes can be abstractly analyzed. We should be free to tear them apart and put them back together…in our minds. Why do you all find that problematic? There’s absolutely no good reason I can find.
Hans,
I think you did reply to CK, but it is good that you have expanded on this further.
Here is again the relevant part of the article.
“Apart from grace, man’s work is man’s work and God’s work is God’s work, and ne’er the twain shall meet. That’s true, so long as we exclude grace from the picture.
But grace is not excluded from the picture. Grace isn’t even merely a part of the picture. Grace is the picture. Grace is the very thing that demolishes this either/or opposition between God and man.
This is the gospel proclaimed, in fact, by the Person of Christ, for in Christ, God and man are united in harmonious fellowship. In Christ, our humanity does not compete with divinity for glory. In Christ, our humanity is not fundamentally opposed to divinity. In Christ, our humanity does not stake out territory to the exclusion of divinity. No, the Incarnation shows us the demolition of that former reality. It shows us a humanity in perfect harmony with divinity, a humanity whose thoughts, words, and actions are the thoughts, words, and actions of God.
II.
This is why the Catholic Church sees no opposition between God’s glory and including our good works in salvation, or between God’s glory and including the communion of saints in salvation. From the Catholic perspective, including them in our salvation does not rob God of glory, because they are His works through us.”
The crux of the matter is that Jesus is fully man, and his good works are the work of his human as well as his divine nature, and both demand recompense from God, deserve recompense from God, and are rewarded by God. By baptism we enter the kingdom of God, the church, the Body of Christ, and we partake of his glory and his divine life. As the article points out, grace is what effects this change, it is no longer us acting alone, but God with us, and grace’s action in us entitles us to merit.
Our good works are evidence of God working in us, and by allowing God’s work in us we become God’s co-workers.
Thus the angel can say to Mary in Luke 1 “You have won God’s favour.” There is something that Mary has done, her faithfulness and fidelity to God, which earns her God’s favour, all through grace.
I have an article in my blog on the Nature of Good Works, do have a read.
Hope you are feeling better.
Water–
The problem is that, despite his claims to the contrary, very little of De Haan’s convert soteriology is in conflict with his former Reformed beliefs. He has changed communities without changing convictions.
As he wrote–“In Christ, our humanity does not compete with divinity for glory”–this is exactly correct…our works are but his works through us. His is the actual glory. All of it. Ours is the reflected glory of the moon while his is the sun. We’re not saying anything different. I’m sorry if that disappoints you. You’ve been lied to, I guess.
Both historic Catholicism and historic Protestantism insist on Sola Gratia. Unfortunately, what Catholics teach in actual practice is usually a works-based salvation. I don’t think most Catholics would recognize Sola Gratia as their own. Instead, they’d immediately anathematize it as “obviously Protestant.” It’s sad. Very sad.
Hans,
I don’t think “obviously Protestant” at all. What is “obviously Protestant” is the slant on it that man is deserving of nothing even aided by God’s grace. This is the error.
Oh, and I’ve never, ever heard a Catholic claim that there really isn’t very much RC dogma that one can consider irreformable.
That’s a brand new one!
Hans,
My comment does not seem to have got through.
One learns every day.
Water–
One learns every day that not everyone who claims allegiance to Rome is an expert on Catholicism….
A sizeable majority of biblical passages do not have an infallible Catholic interpretation, but that’s different from saying that very few RC dogmas are irreformable.
Hans,
Why would particular scripture passages have an “infallible” interpretation?
Craig, Please keep up the interesting posts. If you have more on Confession of Dositheus, Filioque, Saint Photios, Jesus Christ, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Calvinism, Sola Scriptura, and other issues, please write whatever God puts on your heart. God bless you. Scott
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope ROMANS 5:3-4
Water, Don’t you and I agree on this. The Scripture, from the Church, is not the pillar and ground of the truth; the Church is (as Scripture says 1 St. Tm. 3:15). I think that Hans doesn’t get that. We both get that, mostly on the same page, except for Filioque and 1054; what we have in common is from pope and councils, especially the papacy was with us, 325-787. Take care.
Hans, Water, and Craig:
Muller On Reformed Orthodoxy On Double Procession And The Filioque
Muller Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics2. The demonstration of the filioque: “double procession.” The traditionally Western trinitarian concept of the double procession of the Holy Spirit was consistently upheld by the Reformers and argued with some vigor against the Greek Orthodox view. The Reformed exegetes, moreover, understood the issue to be one of exegesis, not merely an issue of the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and found the biblical text to be entirely of one accord in favor of double procession. Vermigli writes, with reference to John 15:26,
Seeing the Son saith, that he will send the Spirit, and (as we said before) affirmeth him to receive of his; no man doubteth, but that he proceedeth from the Son. And now he expressly addeth; Who proceedeth from the Father.
Calvin took the point with equal seriousness, noting in his commentary on the same text,
When he says that he will send him from the Father, and, again, that he proceedeth from the Father, he does so in order to increase the weight of his authority; for the testimony of the Spirit would not be sufficient against attacks so powerful, and against efforts so numerous and fierce, if we were not convinced that he proceedeth from God. So then it is Christ who sends the Spirit, but it is from the heavenly glory, that we may know that it is not a gift of men, but a sure pledge of Divine grace. Hence it appears how idle was the subtlety of the Greeks, when they argued, on the ground of these words, that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son; for here Christ, according to his custom, mentions the Father in order to raise our eyes to the contemplation of his Divinity.
As in Vermigli’s comment, Calvin’s analysis of the text assumes the sending of the Spirit by Christ and therefore the procession of the Spirit from the Son and views the further statement of the Gospel that the Spirit proceeds from the Father not restrictively but as an expansion of the meaning to include the Father.
Calvin rather emphatically takes the words “he proceeds from the Father” as an indication of the authority of the Spirit, not of the sole origin of his eternal procession: Christ here sends the Spirit, but manifests the Spirit as a “sure pledge of divine grace.” It is, he concludes, an “idle subtlety of the Greeks” to claim this text as warrant for their denial of double procession. Calvin points out in his comment on Romans 8:9,
But let readers observe here, that the Spirit is, without any distinction, called sometimes the Spirit of God the Father, and sometimes the Spirit of Christ; and thus called, not only because his whole fulness was poured on Christ as our Mediator and head, so that from him a portion might descend on each of us, but also because he is equally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, who have one essence, and the same eternal divinity.
The orthodox follow the Reformers in upholding the Western doctrine of the filioque. The orthodox Reformed writers not only argue the Augustinian doctrine of double procession they insist on it as a biblical point held over against the teachings of the Greek Orthodox:
The property of the Son in respect of the Holy Ghost is to send him out, John 15:26. Hence arose the Schism between the Western and the Eastern Churches, they affirming the procession from the Father and the Son, these from the Father alone (Edward Leigh, Treatise; Downame, Summe)
Among the Reformed orthodox theologians, Pictet notes the clear distinction of persons in John 15:26:
Here the Comforter, or Spirit, is plainly distinct from the Father and the Son. Again, they are so distinguished, that some things are said of the Father which cannot be said of the Son, and some things of the Son which are no where said of the Spirit. The Father is said to have begotten the Son … the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, and to be sent by the Son; but nowhere is the Father said to proceed from nor the Son to be sent by the Spirit. Yet are these persons distinct in such a manner, that they are not three Gods but one God; for the scripture everywhere proves and reason confirms, the unity of the Godhead.
Similar statements are found among the Reformed exegetes of the era. Poole notes that the text has been read variously: some exegetes understand the Spirit’s procession from the Father merely as his coming forth or being poured out at Pentecost, whereas others—“the generality of the best interpreters”—understand the text as a reference to “the Holy Spirit’s eternal proceeding.” Owen, by way of contrast, argues the primary meaning of the text to be that the Spirit “goeth forth or proceedeth” in order to “put into execution” the salvific counsel of God in the application of grace and views the immanent procession of the Spirit as a secondary meaning, a conclusion to be drawn from the text.
As Pictet notes, the Reformed orthodox uniformly follow the Western doctrine:
That the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is proved by those passages in which he is represented as being sent no less by the Son than by the Father; nor is he any less the Spirit of the Son than of the Father: Rom. 8:9, “any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ …; Gal. 4:6, “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts”; John 16:7, “If I do not go away, Comforter will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you.”
Nor is this a minor point in theology that can be dismissed:
To deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, is a grievous error of Divinity, and would have grated the foundation, if the Greek Church had so denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as that they had made an inequality between the Persons. But since their form of speech is, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father by the Son, and is the Spirit of the Son, without making any difference in the consubstantiality of the Persons it is a true though erroneous Church in this particular; divers learned men think that à Filio & per Filium in the sense of the Greek Church, was but a question in modo loquendi, in manner of speech, and not fundamental.
The problem of the filioque was, therefore, not something that the Reformed orthodox could ignore: they refused to go so far as to claim that the Greek church was a false church, but they still insisted that it ensconced an error in its doctrinal explanations of the creed.
From the Reformed perspective, moreover, the Greek critique of the filioque, that it implied two ultimate principia or archai in the Godhead, did not hold—for there could only be two archai if the Father and the Son separately and equally were the sources of the Spirit’s procession. The orthodox conception of the filioque, however, insisted on the unity of the act of the Father and the Son, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son by “one and the same breathing” and does so from both equally, the Father and the Son acting in communion with one another. Thus, the Holy Ghost, the third person, proceeds from the Father and the Son: “and albeit the Father and the Son are distinct persons, yet they are both but one beginning of the holy Ghost.” At the same time, following the Western pattern, the Reformed orthodox insisted on the begetting of the Son as placing the Son second in order, thus maintaining the Father as ultimate source of the personal distinctions and the Father and the Son together as the source of the Spirit.
—Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 4.373–76 (via Logos edition)
Facebook20LinkedInTwitterEmail
Posted by R. Scott Clark | Saturday, March 22, 2014 | Categorized Doctrine of God, Reformed Orthodoxy, Trinity
scott,
I’m not familiar with Calvin’s views, and will refrain to go there. It is not clear to me that he has Catholic views in this matter.
But here is another extract for you to consider:
“Also, in the year A.D. 410 –that is, after the A.D. 381 Council of Constantinople, the Council of Seleucia (in the Antiochian patriarchate), declared its faith in …
“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).
The Greek term used was “proienai” (not “ekporeusis”). It was, thus, an orthodox profession, and possibly an intentional attempt to validate the Alexandrian theology of St. Athanasius, etc. Please keep in mind also that, in A.D. 410, this regional Council of Seleucia was on par with the contemporary view of Constantinople I, which was also seen as merely a regional council, and not yet counted as Ecumenical. Indeed, if the bishops at Seleucia in A.D. 410 interpreted the Constantinopolitan Creed in the exclusive, rigid sense in which most modern Eastern Orthodox interpret it, they would never have been able to make the profession quoted above. A change in Eastern understanding has clearly taken place.
And this is self-evident from the very language of the Constantinopolitan Creed itself. For, in one place, the Creed describes the Personal identity of the Spirit as “the Life Giver” (“the Giver of Life”). But, in another place, it tells us that it is “through” the Son that “all things were created” –a reference to the Son’s eternal, Personal identity as the Word. For, as John 1:3-4declares of the Son:
“All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be through Him was life …”
This alone reveals the necessity of an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit. For, if the Spirit is the “Giver of Life,” and if life comes “through” the Son, then the Spirit cannot possibly be the “Giver of Life” (His Personal identity) except through the Son. Thus, the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father must intrinsically involve the Son –the very thing which Photian theology denies.”
scott,
I think we are close, but scripture is God’s revelation to us, and therefore the highest authority. The church is the final and in the end sole interpreter of scripture, in the light of Tradition, which in essence is how the scriptures have been understood by the church down the ages.
As for the pope, there is no way that Jesus can let the church, his Body, go astray. As you say, it is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. And God sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into the fullness of the truth.
God promised to David that his kingdom would endure for ever. God does not abandon the bad Davidic kings. He punishes them, but of David’s line is born the Messiah.
Jesus is the head of the church, which is his Body. A divorce is not possible. After Peter, who is given authority by Jesus in Caeserea Philippi, the northernmost Jesus goes in his preaching, immediately after which Jesus sets out on his way back to Jerusalem and Calvary, Peter’s successors lead the church, good and bad popes.
Peter is the first apostle Jesus addresses by name in the gospels, in John 1, and Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter, which means the giving of a mission, Peter which means rock, and Peter is the last apostle Jesus addresses by name, in John 21, where Jesus gives Peter his mission, to feed Jesus’ flock and look after it. It is God’s will that the church is under one authority on earth, and indeed his will will endure, and does so through the popes down the ages.
God bless.