Mark Horne: Drop the Filioque already!
Should we “Drop the Filioque?” – Kuyperian Commentary.
This almost gave birth to my impending, “Why I Hate The Trinitarian Blogosphere” post, but I don’t have time. Suffice it to say, I find all the argument for the truth of the Filioque completely convincing and the arguments against it unconvincing or just plain indecipherable. If anything I am even more convinced that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son than I was before.
I still would be fine dropping it from the Nicene Creed.
Look, the original affirmation, as included in the original Nicene Creed, was a quotation from Scripture. Inserting an alien clause in that phrase really bothers me. Yes, a Confession can and sometimes should say more than what is in one passage of Scripture. But editing an actual verse is still unnecessary. As a Bible-believing Protestant I can’t think that God is happy with such a procedure.
Secondly, I don’t see why the Western Church had to unilaterally change an Ecumenical creed and then , essentially, pass it off as the ancient creed itself.
As a Presbyterian, I still have the filioque affirmed and required in the tenth Q&A of the Westminster Larger Catechism. That strikes me as about the right place for such a definition at that level. But even if it was put in a creed for congregational worship, I don’t think it should be, or be called, “The Nicene Creed.”
I already believe plenty of things that are not affirmed in the Nicene Creed, and break with other professing Christians over these matters. I don’t need the Nicene Creed to affirm all my particular beliefs, even truths I do not think others should deny or teach against. If I did, it would be a longer document.
So I don’t understand why the fact that the filioque happens to be true, or even important, counts as an argument that it should remain in the Nicene Creed as we recite it in the Western Church.<>веб контент этояндекс директ цена
The post Mark Horne: Drop the Filioque already! appeared first on Kuyperian Commentary.