Regrettably, an Orthodox apologist has apostatized from the faith and is exploring Roman Catholicism quite militantly. He created a pseudonym “Hieronymus Catholic” to further his cause. Sadly losing the charity and humility found in his earlier writings, this new incarnation brings with himself the same unpolished acuity with a new wit and subdued malevolence. Similarly, he likewise carries over an over-reliance on secondary sources and narrow readings from the primary sources, which he has evidently not read in their completeness. (Part 2 is here)

An Apology for the Reply to “Hieronymus Catholic” (“HC”). Why am I responding? I am fully aware that the blog was made strictly for the purpose of anonymously attacking both my person and my research (particularly that in a recent video). Further, it has no real publicity and by replying, I in fact give a major publicity “pay day” to an unknown. However, it has been years and thousands of views since I have written a series of articles on Augustine’s Pneumatology and have publicly expounded an Orthodox interpretation of these. No one in all of this time has attempted a response. So, simply to show that I take my research seriously, I will reply seriously to the response. I am not wedded to the potentiality of responding to every possible response which may be devised in the future. And sadly, his conscience being in “new convert mode,” I do not seriously anticipate that this will convince him. Hopefully, in time, it will by God’s grace.

Weaknesses in “HC’s” Polemic. HC attempts to win the day through several rhetorical slights of hand. He alleges my methodology is wrong (“Craig…twist[s] all of the relevant texts he cites;” “astronomical levels of projection;” etcetera), but never establishes this—preferring to accuse me of this simply for not importing alien meaning into the texts. In other words, because I refuse to share in his and his sectarians’ own eisegesis, this must mean I am being “dishonest” (his words) with the text. This is a dubious assertion. It is also an assertion which is made in lieu of substance.

HC makes the fair point of asserting that “virtually all scholars” dispute the view of Augustine that myself, Saint Filaret of Moscow, and Saint Gennadius Scholarios (and potentially Maximus and Palamas) all infer in kind. This is worth bringing up once I’d say, with a grain of salt because technically it is a logical fallacy (i.e. appeal to authority). This is a logical fallacy that HC repeats five times, betraying a lack of substantive content to counter my arguments.

Do Orthodox need Augustine to be correct on Pneumatology? At one point, HC makes the assertion:

The theology of St. Augustine was authoritatively declared to be orthodox by the 5th Ecumenical Council…if Augustine’s Trinitarian theology truly was heretical, then this would cast significant doubt on the concept of the consensus patrum, given just how many Fathers and Doctors of the Church bought into what the Eastern Orthodox consider a soul-destroying heresy…

This is overly simplistic. St Vincent de Lerins in writing perhaps the most crucial work on the epistemology of consensus patrum was in opposition of what were perceives as aspects of Augustine’s soteriology. He even wrote that a consensus is the view of “almost all” the saints (Commonitorium, Par 6) and applied universality to the Council of Ephesus, which in fact had a whole Patriarchate in opposition to it (Antioch). In other words, consensus permits a small contingent to be in opposition. If this is too much of a “shade of gray” thing for many moderns, well that is their problem. This is the epistemic reality the fathers operated under. And so, even if Augustine was wrong and a whole Patriarchate was deluded (points I do not grant), this is not a real epistemic problem according to how the fathers understand consensus.

HC’s Treatment of Tractate 99, Par 4. In short, HC argues that:

1. Augustine ascribes to (something analogous to) Thomistic divine simplicity.

2. Augustine in Par 6 says the magic words “filioque.”

3. I am being dishonest (“if Craig were genuinely trying to understand what Augustine…”) by not talking about Par 6.

4. Par 6 teaches the eternal procession of the Spirit to be attributed causally to both the Father and Son.

Allow me to take apart each premise:

1. I concede Augustine ascribes to a view of simplicity which would be developed into the Thomistic view. However, it requires HC to demonstrate that Augustine carried such a view to the logical conclusion with Aquinas draws as it pertains to the Filioque. Simply presuming upon it is not a proof.

2. Par 6-7 says what amounts to the magic words “filioque” indeed. This does not mean that by using such terminology Augustine intends the meaning that others would draw many centuries later.

3. Accusing me of dishonesty (and then walking back the claim, I suppose in an exhibition of false charity) as being a premise in the argument just shows how weak his counter argument is. In reality, I have treated Par 6-7 years ago, and I will do so again in a moment. My motivation not to do so in the video was simply time constraints in what was a response video to Dwong. Dwong did not cite the passage and instead of getting lost in the weeds of covering every possible objection someone may make to salvage Dwong’s argument I simply just responded to Dwong’s actual argument. Nothing nefarious here.

And so, reviewing the first three premises of HC’s reply, we have 1. a presumption with no demonstration (“trust me bro”), 2. a word concept fallacy, and 3 an ad hominem (another logical fallacy). Maybe someone is impressed by reading this, but I’d wager it is simply someone desperate to be validated in their sectarian views. It is disappointing that someone as intelligent as HC has descended intellectually to the gutter.

Number 4 is the meat of HC’s argument. Again, it was not actually the point made by Dwong’s video. Even assuming Dwong was right and I am wrong, this would not actually be a defense to the logic Dwong employed and my response to it. I will suppose, charitably, that one can string the pearls by inferring that if Par 6 truly does teach the eternal filioque, then one can validly infer that Par 4 was intending to do the same as it must have been intended to carry out to its logic to the same conclusion Aquinas would later draw.

My response to this is fairly integrated, but I will try to briefly summarize my treatment of the topic from years ago (here, here, here, and here).

First, Augustine begins the paragraph by saying, “Some one may here inquire whether the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.” In that one sentence, he literally eviscerates all of the incorrect, Florentine treatments of Par 4. The operating presumption from Augustine is that up until that point, he was intending to discuss strictly the Spirit’s procession from the Father. This, effectually, validates my whole treatment of Par 4 whose central point was that the logic and application was explicitly only the Father.

Second, Augustine cites Matt 10:20, Gal 4:6, Eph 4:4-6, Rom 8:9-11, John 20:22, Luke 6:19, Luke 8:46, Luke 1:35, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8 with the intent of establishing the shared divine essence between each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity has a personal manifestation (“By the name, therefore, which they each also hold in common…”). There is nothing here about eternal causation and Augustine never brings the topic up. That is entirely an eisegesis. In fact, all of the Scriptural passages pertain to the temporal procession.

Third, after establishing the preceding Augustine in Par 8 returns to the topic of the Spirit’s procession from the Father when it is true that, in some sense, He proceeds also from the Son (temporally). Augustine quotes “My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me” (John 7:16) to establish though the “doctrine” (i.e. the Spirit to Augustine) is the Father’s, because the Son sends the Spirit to us He is also His. In other words, the eternal causal procession of the Spirit from the Father (as established in Par 4) does not abrogate the temporal procession through the Son.

Understanding John 7:16 is key to the entire passage. In Book 2, Par 4 of On the Trinity the passage is used as a proof text pertaining to the Son’s eternal causation from the Father and this leads to a train of thought which in the next paragraph leads to some apologizing on Augustine’s part:

…it remains that the Holy Spirit be understood to have of that which is the Father’s, as the Son also has [which is of the Father’s]. And how can this be, unless according to that which we have said above, “But when the Comforter has come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of me?” He [the Spirit] is said, therefore, not to speak of Himself [the Spirit], in that He proceeds from the Father…the words belong to Him as proceeding from the Father. But whereas both the Son is of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons, and both not said to be begotten, but the former is called the one only-begotten Son, and the latter, viz. the Holy Spirit, neither son nor begotten, because if begotten, then certainly a son, we will discuss in another place, if God shall grant, and so far as He shall grant. (On the Trinity, Book 2, Par 5)

In other words, how can the temporal procession work, and the Spirit convey what is also the Son’s, when He proceeds (eternally) from the Father (alone)? The parenthetical statements are justified, because Augustine ends that paragraph addressing speculations of eternal causation from the Father. The objection Augustine is addressing is how the temporal procession exists (and betrays the Trinity’s consubstantiality vis a vis the Arians) when the Scriptures assert that the Spirit is from the Father.

If the numerous passages applying to the temporal procession with zero mention of eternal causation in Par 6-7 were not clear enough to establish Augustine’s point in Par 8 is purely temporal, let’s look at how Augustine treats the same passage in Book 15, Par 48 of On the Trinity:

If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, ‘He proceeds from the Father.’ [John 15:26] Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He says, ‘My doctrine is not my own, but His that sent me?’ [John 7:16] If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself [the Son], where He so says, He proceeds from the Father… the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both.

Hence, I am hardly making an eisegesis. I am literally following the logic of the text, all the proof texts Augustine employs, and connecting it to how he himself exegetes and applies the same text.

I want to make a fourth point though HC misses this entirely and does not bring it up. Both Book 2, Par 5 and Book 15, Par 48 ask the question how the Spirit is not also a Son and etcetera because He is eternally caused by the Father. We already know the answer Augustine gives, as he concludes on Par 48 by answering this question: the Son plays a role in temporal procession. This implies (to me) the Son can share in procession, but this is not causal and so Augustine can maintain (as all the Fathers do) that the difference in hypostasis is reduced to the hypostases’ different causal relationships (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeded). Augustine simply appeals to temporal procession as solving the conundrum. He does so similarly in Tractate 99, Par 9 and closes the tractate on this precise point.

So, for all the bluster of HC against myself (and how “sorry” he allegedly feels for me, when in reality it is I praying for his eternal soul), what he lacks is an integrated exegesis that actually follows Augustine’s own logic, which is repeated in multiple places. In its place are bunch of inferences (“would we not expect Augustine to…,” “if Augustine believed…,” “Augustine must be saying [though he does not go out and say it]…”).

Why are people offended by someone such as myself who is not transparently imposing inferences upon a text as they do? They honestly do not see it. But that is just how I feel, such feelings do not prove anything.

HC’s Treatment of On the Trinity, Book 5, Par 15. HC makes a dubious accusation that “Craig never actually cites the full context of this quote” when I literally read every preceding sentence before the section Dwong cites. My crime, apparently, was not in reading the entire paragraph, or book for that matter…or all of them! Obviously, for the sake of time, that is not possible.

Here is the portion missing:

But in their mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he begets, the Father is a beginning in relation to the Son, because He begets Him; but whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit, since it is said, He proceeds from the Father, is no small question. Because, if it is so, He will not only be a beginning to that thing which He begets or makes, but also to that which He gives. And here, too, that question comes to light, as it can, which is wont to trouble many, Why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since He, too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read in the Gospel. For the Spirit came forth, not as born, but as given; and so He is not called a son, because He was neither born, as the Only-begotten, nor made, so that by the grace of God He might be born into adoption, as we are. For that which is born of the Father, is referred to the Father only when called Son, and so the Son is the Son of the Father, and not also our Son; but that which is given is referred both to Him who gave, and to those to whom He gave; and so the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son who gave Him, but He is also called ours, who have received Him: as The salvation of the Lord, who gives salvation, is said also to be our salvation, who have received it. Therefore… (On the Trinity, Book 5, Par 15)

I began at “therefore” in the video, because that was obviously the precise application that everything that preceded it in the paragraph. Usually, the word “therefore” is a tell for such a thing. I’d consider this a wise editorial decision in the interest of space. Because this is a blog, and I have a bit more leeway to let things fly, so let’s discuss the rest of the paragraph.

Augustine is clearly picking back up from Book 2, Par 5 where he promised he would resume the discussion. In this blog, I have already given the answer to this from Book 15, Par 48. It should not surprise the reader that the answer in Book 5, Par 15 is no different. The Father, as Augustine points out, is the beginning of the Spirit’s procession (“gives”), but not categorically so—because of the temporal procession. Procession is functionally different than generation, or the Spirit would likewise be a Son. Proof that procession is different than generation is that the temporal procession exists (as the Spirit proceeds to us “who have received it [Him].”) In the midst of this, Augustine reiterates his point about consubstantiality (the Spirit being “of” the Father and “of” the Son).

HC makes the error of thinking the whole passage is strictly about the Spirit’s eternal origin, because he wants it to be. This is classic eisegesis. What Augustine is intending to do is very different. He is intending to answer why generation and procession are different as this is relevant to the question how the hypostases are consubstantial, yet particular vis a vis the Arians. As proof, he poses the temporal procession. That is the point. Ascribing the Spirit’s eternal origin to the Son is nowhere in view.

My editorial decision to not get into the preceding (because I did not cover Tractate Par 6-9 or On the Trinity Book 2 Par 5-6) is understandable. I’d just be killing a dead horse. But, because it was asked for, there you go.

Detailing HC’s exegesis of Book 5, Par 15, HC asserts that “beginning in relation to” pertains to hypostatic origination. This is indeed true. HC is also correct in saying that when Augustine rhetorically askes “whether the Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit,” that this also applies to eternal causation. After this, the train of his thought derails.

HC infers when Augustine states in the negative that the Father is not “a beginning to that [Spirit] which He gives,” this must mean that Augustine’s answer to “whether the Father is also an [eternal] beginning to the Holy Spirit” is being answered as “yes, but not entirely, the Son is too.” However, as I detailed above, the answer does not conform to the expectations HC imposes. Augustine’s answer is, “yes, but the Father is not the Spirit’s beginning in every respect” that respect being the temporal procession. This is why Augustine states “that question comes to light” concerning why generation and procession are different. The answer Augustine gives, simply, is that procession must be different simply because the Son does it too (temporally). Augustine addresses the objection and gives to the eisegetes what proves to be an unsatisfying answer.

HC quotes Augustine’s conclusion “the Holy Spirit is…also called ours” and quips “Augustine is connecting the temporal and eternal processions together, explaining how the former reveals the latter.” However, Augustine never does this. At no point does Augustine ever make this his polemical purpose. Again, eisegesis is needed to import this purpose into Augustine, though it is never communicated nor does the paragraph end on that note (it ends exactly on the note I assert, that the “Father and the Son are one beginning in respect to the Creature.”)

HC’s Treatment of On the Trinity, Book 4, Par 29. The passage in my video presented a nice concise quote which taken at its word, directly contradicted the point for Florence. I did not dwell long on it. HC asserts that “Craig has completely isolated this text from the rest of De Trintate, while also misrepresenting the Florentine doctrine.” Did I?

Concerning Florence, he makes the simple argument that the “Father alone” is the eternal cause of the Son and Spirit, but the Son also plays a causal role, thereby being a single principle. Essentially, the argument is “the Spirit does not have two principles of causation, but a single principle made up of two separate principles.” It’s an obvious contradiction to anyone not going down the “ackshually” road, but it is their dogma, so they have to maintain it. As I explained years ago:

Aquinas himself conceded: “On the other hand the Greeks employ the word ‘cause’ more absolutely when speaking of God, and indicate origin only.” (De Potentia, Question 10, Article 1, Point 8) But, being that Aquinas taught “the Son originates the Holy Spirit,” (Against Greek Errors, Book II, Chap 22) quoting a forgery of Athanasius’ 54th letter, it is clear that Aquinas believed there to be, in fact, two principles (Father, and Father and Son) and two causes (Father, and Father and Son)—and only for technical reasons pertaining to grammar “by reason of the unity of the property [shared essence between Father and Son] that is signified in this word ‘principle’” can we speak of the Spirit originating from a single principle (Summa, Part I, Question 36, Article 4).

In fact, to quote myself:

Aquinas himself, quoting what (from what I can tell) was a forgery ascribed to Gregory Nazianzus: “We believe the holy Trinity, namely, the Father without a principle, the Son, however, a principle from a principle, the Father, but the Holy Spirit with the Son as principle, to be one God throughout all and over all.” (Against Greek Errors, Book II, Chap 24) In fact, Session 11 of Florence literally dogmatizes the preceding forgery: “Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.”

So, as one can see, I am not misrepresenting Florence, I am simply not adopting their doublethink. Let’s now address my alleged mistreatment of Book 4, Par 29 itself. Let’s quote the entire paragraph, but indicate the eternal or temporal nature of each statement given:

As, therefore, the Father begot, the Son is begotten [eternal]; so the Father sent, the Son was sent [temporal]. But in like manner as He who begot and He who was begotten [eternal], so both He who sent and He who was sent [temporal], are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father [eternal]; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father [temporal]. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father [eternal]; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father [temporal]. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. [temporal] Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. [temporal] For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. [temporal] For the veriest of madmen would not say, that it was one Spirit which He gave when He breathed on them, and another which He sent after His ascension. For the Spirit of God is one, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit, who works all in all. But that He was given twice was certainly a significant economy, [temporal] which we will discuss in its place, as far as the Lord may grant. That then which the Lord says —Whom I will send unto you from the Father, — shows the Spirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said, Whom the Father will send, He added also, in my name. [temporal] Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father,— showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. [eternal] He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, [temporal] is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born (natus). [eternal] And that which the evangelist says, For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified; how is this to be understood, unless because the special giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorification of Christ was to be such as it had never been before? [temporal] For it was not previously none at all, but it had not been such as this. For if the Holy Spirit was not given before, wherewith were the prophets who spoke filled? [temporal] Whereas the Scripture plainly says, and shows in many places, that they spoke by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, also, it is said of John the Baptist, And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. [temporal] And his father Zacharias is found to have been filled with the Holy Ghost, so as to say such things of him. [temporal] And Mary, too, was filled with the Holy Ghost, so as to foretell such things of the Lord, whom she was bearing in her womb. [temporal] And Simeon and Anna were filled with the Holy Spirit, so as to acknowledge the greatness of the little child Christ. [temporal] How, then, was the Spirit not yet given, since Jesus was not yet glorified, unless because that giving, or granting, or mission of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain specialty of its own in its very advent, such as never was before? [temporal] For we read nowhere that men spoke in tongues which they did not know, through the Holy Spirit coming upon them; as happened then, when it was needful that His coming should be made plain by visible signs, in order to show that the whole world, and all nations constituted with different tongues, should believe in Christ through the gift of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill that which is sung in the Psalm, There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard; their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. [temporal] (On the Trinity, Book 4, Par 29)

HC asserts that from the preceding “Augustine’s point here is astoundingly clear. He writes that the Son being sent into the world by the Father signifies the fact that the Son is eternally begotten.” This is true. HC then adds:

Likewise, he says that the Spirit being sent into the world by the Father is also a temporal sign of the eternal reality that the Spirit proceeds, i.e. receives His hypostatic origin, from the Father. To this Augustine adds that, since the Spirit is sent into the world by the Son also, this temporal sending “signifies” the fact that “the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.” If this is not a clear affirmation of the Filioque, then I honestly do not think there is anything Augustine could have possibly said that would be.

Let’s focus upon “signifies.” Augustine writes:

Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost.

According to HC, the temporal procession allegedly “signifies” to Augustine that the eternal procession works in exactly the same way. Yet, this is not actually the logic Augustine puts forward, despite blustering that this is a “clear affirmation of the Filioque.”

Augustine’s argument is clarified due to the “eternal” and “temporal” indicators above. Indeed, the Son is begotten by the Father and this is eternal, and He is likewise sent by the Father and this is temporal. The Spirit likewise “from the Father” eternally, but likewise “proceed[s] from the Father” temporally.

Augustine establishes a strict one for one parallelism. But Augustine’s actual point is that this parallelism may only be taken so far: “Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son.” What follows are five examples in a row signifying this is not the case.

Augustine does not explicitly use the term “signify” in order to prove the parallelism of the eternal and temporal always being on their face one to one. In fact, he uses the term “signify” to demonstrate the exact opposite which he goes on to do at considerable length. This is not my opinion. This is explicitly what Augustine conveys by saying “neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son” and as the explicit example of this being the case, the breathing onto the disciples of the Holy Ghost is cited. The significance of this, as Augustine puts very briefly is that the temporal procession demonstrates the consubstantiality of the Father and Son with the Spirit. This is something that as I already covered Augustine speaks about elsewhere, and as my video discusses at length, was a trope amongst the fathers (a trope that Saint Maximus and even Latin observers such as Anastasius the Librarian were emphatic about in asserting that historical Latin Pneumatology was the same as Eastern Pneumatology).

After establishing his point that the temporal procession indeed indicates that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son (vis a vis the Arians), he sagely tries to avoid the exact sort of misapprehension HC makes in what amounts to be a parenthetical statement within the entire argument. “Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me.” This is identical to his contemporary, Cyril of Alexandria’s claim, that the Spirit proceeds from the “fountain” of the Father (Epistle 55, Par 40) and “emerges from the substance of God the Father and is poured out on those worthy to receive him through the Word…” (Translated by Brian Daley; quoted in Weinandy and Keating, The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria, p. 135) Augustine is making clear the Son is not the eternal cause—He is not “from” the Son writing: “’I will send unto you from the Father,’— showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity.” How else is one to interpret, “He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, [temporal—as per every example given in the paragraph thus far] is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born (natus). [eternal as per the beginning of the paragraph]”

HC skips past the whole conclusion to the above entirely leaving out the purposeful dichotomy between the temporal procession and eternal causation. Perhaps this was because what Augustine wrote was transparent and inconvenient to his case. However, my honest opinion is that it simply does not compute in his new worldview which he has evidently uncritically embraced. It simply disappears from his mind, because it eludes simple eisegetical categorization (but don’t worry, the power of ad hocing is very strong and someone I am sure can devise something).

His quoting of Book 15, Par 29 actually contradicts his point (Augustine uses the term “principally” to convey the eternal causation is solely of the Father). His eisegesis (“What it means for the Father to be the beginning of the whole…is that He alone is the one who has these properties in Himself, i.e. non-derivatively”) is such a crass eisegesis and so absent from Augustine’s text that it deserves no more mention.

As for the rest of Book 4, Par 29, understandably is absent from HC’s analysis. It is an intentional repetition of eternal processions. Augustine’s whole polemical purpose, vis a vis the Arians, is to establish the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity. He already established that this was through the temporal and not the eternal procession. So, he returns to his original point which, and in the same fashion he did beforehand, he reiterates it repeatedly.

Conclusion to Part I. In all of the preceding, HC never details or documents an example of the “projecting” he accused me of. According to him I was always at fault for “omissions” and provided that these omissions were not there, HC’s alleged point would be demonstrated. But, as I showed, these “omissions” when fleshed out by HC only reveal how eisegetical his exegesis really is. They only “help” his cause because they provide more opportunities to provide foreign meaning into the text.

In our next installment, I will deconstruct Augustine’s psychological Trinities, exposing that HC evidently has not read Books 9-10 of On the Trinity in any detail. This betrays his approach to Book 11 as similarly eisegetical.