Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[hansgeorg]

That's an odd way to debate. Why not provide the backup right off the bat? I'm not going to accept anything controversial on your say-so.

If I had my own computer and time at it paid by books already published on paper, instead of having my blogs published nearly only on the web and being poor, I might have taken more time.

I'll start the first one : in ... I do not find the reference I recalled.

In what I recalled, the council of 869 had been accepted by Rome, rescinded by Pope Zachary when Photius asked for it, and then that of 879 had been held.

It seems that must have been some spoof, since Pope Zachary was already deceased by then.

Curiously, I had found that story on an orthodox resource, around the time when I was going to the Roumanian Orthodox Church in 2006.

So, I will take next on the list:

He believed in Original Sin? Damnation of unbaptised infants? So did Gregory Palamas and Avvakum.

Kucharek states that "the great St Gregory Palamas himself (d.1359) believed that Mary was purified from the very first of her existence." Kucharek also states that the Greek Orthodox Church belief of the Immaculate Conception until the 15th century only began to change wherein Greek theologians began to propose the idea of Mary being only made immaculate at her Annunciation. But belief in the Immaculate Conception in eastern Slavs was undisturbed until the late 17th century when the Skirzhal (Book of Laws - also spelled Skrigeal due to problems of translating Cyrillic alphabet to Latin alphabet) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered as a "novel doctrine" of the Greeks (ie that the Theotokos was purified at the Annunciation).

http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton2.html

Not quite the one, no ...

That's why I was fascinated to discover that St. Gregory Palamas, the 14th century bishop who is the rallying point for theologians crying "Difference!" to the West, was substantially influenced by St. Augustine. This fact was obscured by Palamas' failure to attribute his quotes, but there are substantial passages from the Chapters which are identical or nearly identical with passages from the Greek translation of De Trinitate, written by St. Augustine. See the article by Flogaus in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

http://popinainteasy.blogspot.fr/200...gustinian.htmlhttp://www.academia.edu/21840313/_Gr..._Philosophica_

(Here we are)

He believed in filioque? So did St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Gregory and St Augustine (whom Photius counted as "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" in Vivlijothiki).

That St Augustine believed filioque, I don't think you dispute. Searching Photius Bibliotheca, bbl.

[hansgeorg]

Athanasius:

A medieval account credited Athanasius of Alexandria, the famous defender of Nicene theology, as the author of the Creed. According to this account, Athanasius composed it during his exile in Rome and presented it to Pope Julius I as a witness to his orthodoxy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed in Greek.

St Athanasius had been two years in Trier, where no one understood Greek. He had had to learn Latin.

Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mention the Creed.

Argument from silence is weak, when we discuss times from which so little have survived.

It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.

Since it was not a conciliar act, why should it?

It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque).
It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.

Athanasius had given it to a Western Pope.

His associate Osius of Corduba, not saint since having vaccillated, but on his side while Orthodox, was close enough to Toledo, where a synonym phrase for filioque appears in an explanatory creed (not St Athanasius' famous one) against Priscillianists, anno 400.

http://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm

My English translation of it is here:

http://trentophilaret.blogspot.fr/p/...ouncil-of.html

[hansgeorg]

Pope Saint Leo I

And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.

http://newadvent.com/fathers/3604015.htm

St Leo is actually adressing a Modalist heresy, but he is mentioning the procession from both Father and Son of the Holy Ghost.

[JohnMartin]

The Westminster confession of faith states -

V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

[14] MAT 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 1JO 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1JO 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

Because justification is extrinsic to man, man need not live in a particular way for justification to be maintained. We see this in the WC where it says - [b]V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] [b]he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration

[One Bad Pig]

If I had my own computer and time at it paid by books already published on paper, instead of having my blogs published nearly only on the web and being poor, I might have taken more time.

I'll start the first one : in ... I do not find the reference I recalled.

In what I recalled, the council of 869 had been accepted by Rome, rescinded by Pope Zachary when Photius asked for it, and then that of 879 had been held.

It seems that must have been some spoof, since Pope Zachary was already deceased by then.

Curiously, I had found that story on an orthodox resource, around the time when I was going to the Roumanian Orthodox Church in 2006.

So, I will take next on the list:

He believed in Original Sin? Damnation of unbaptised infants? So did Gregory Palamas and Avvakum.



http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/barton2.html

A blog? Vaguely citing "Kucharek"? I assume it's referring to the Roman Catholic Fr. Casimir Kucharek, who just might possibly be biased in favor of Roman Catholicism. However, the belief that Mary did not sin is not equivalent to the Immaculate Conception, which holds that she never sinned because she was immaculately conceived. Orthodoxy, rejecting the Augustinian dogma of Original Sin, does not need the Immaculate Conception to posit that Mary was without sin.

Not quite the one, no ...



http://popinainteasy.blogspot.fr/200...gustinian.html

We are getting closer ...

Oh, another blog, wholly without citation. You need to do better than that.

http://www.academia.edu/21840313/_Gr..._Philosophica_

(Here we are)

Well, at least we have here a scholarly paper, albeit in pre-draft form. Except Robert E. Sinkewicz, C.S.B. (iow, a Roman Catholic) in his prefatory synopsis of his work on The One Hundred Fifty Chapters, concludes that "the suspected Augustinian elements in his Trinitarian theology derive not from Augustine but from the hesychast theology of the Jesus Prayer...." You need to be careful that you do not ascribe superficial surface agreement with underlying actual agreement.

He believed in filioque? So did St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Gregory and St Augustine (whom Photius counted as "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" in Vivlijothiki).

That St Augustine believed filioque, I don't think you dispute. Searching Photius Bibliotheca, bbl.

Not being all that familiar with Bl. Augustine's writings, I'm not going to take your word for it. And even if you find it in some writing, I would ask that it be checked against his Refutations.

[One Bad Pig]

Athanasius:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creedhttp://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm

My English translation of it is here:

http://trentophilaret.blogspot.fr/p/...ouncil-of.html

Wikipedia?

I will quote from Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition Vol. 1: Early, Eastern, and Medieval, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss:

Source: The Athanasian Creed, p. 673

Since the seventeenth century, most church historians have recognized that the so-called Athanasian Creed is not the work of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296-373). In the first place the work expounds theological concepts arising from debates that took place after Athanasius's death, and equally important, its language is Latin, not Greek. The text has been variously attributed to Ambrose, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Caesarius of Arles, and others, but there is now a general consensus that it is a product of the fifth or sixth century.

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Pope Saint Leo I



http://newadvent.com/fathers/3604015.htm

St Leo is actually adressing a Modalist heresy, but he is mentioning the procession from both Father and Son of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I see he is mentioning that. Saints are not infallible (for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa ascribed to the apokatastasis of all things, an Origenist doctrine later condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council).

Further, the filioque is not an acceptable intrusion into the Creed because it was a) never agreed to by an ecumenical council (and those after the seventh hardly count as ecumenical since they were never accepted as such by the East) and b) it is vague in that it allows the heretical interpretation that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father and the Son.

[hansgeorg]

A blog? Vaguely citing "Kucharek"? I assume it's referring to the Roman Catholic Fr. Casimir Kucharek, who just might possibly be biased in favor of Roman Catholicism. However, the belief that Mary did not sin is not equivalent to the Immaculate Conception, which holds that she never sinned because she was immaculately conceived. Orthodoxy, rejecting the Augustinian dogma of Original Sin, does not need the Immaculate Conception to posit that Mary was without sin.

I presume you are right it might br Fr. Casimir Kucharek. And he might be right about where the true Church of Christ is.

Biassed or not, I don't think he'd invent a thing like "was purified from the very first of her existence."

If ordinary conceptions are not anywhere impure, how can Palamas say a thing like "was purified"?

Oh, another blog, wholly without citation. You need to do better than that.

Sorry, but as long as Karl is not proven to be a liar or sloppy, I'm taking his word as a good starting point - not being biassed against blogs.

Well, at least we have here a scholarly paper, albeit in pre-draft form. Except Robert E. Sinkewicz, C.S.B. (iow, a Roman Catholic) in his prefatory synopsis of his work on The One Hundred Fifty Chapters, concludes that "the suspected Augustinian elements in his Trinitarian theology derive not from Augustine but from the hesychast theology of the Jesus Prayer...." You need to be careful that you do not ascribe superficial surface agreement with underlying actual agreement.

If Sinkewicz was right, either hesychasm owes a great deal to St Augustine, or St Augustine owes a great deal to hesychasm.

Not being all that familiar with Bl. Augustine's writings, I'm not going to take your word for it. And even if you find it in some writing, I would ask that it be checked against his Refutations.

I will quote from Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition Vol. 1: Early, Eastern, and Medieval, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss:

Source: The Athanasian Creed, p. 673

Since the seventeenth century, most church historians have recognized that the so-called Athanasian Creed is not the work of St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296-373). In the first place the work expounds theological concepts arising from debates that took place after Athanasius's death, and equally important, its language is Latin, not Greek. The text has been variously attributed to Ambrose, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Caesarius of Arles, and others, but there is now a general consensus that it is a product of the fifth or sixth century.

© Copyright Original Source

What exactly has he said I did not already cite from wiki?

A list of alternative authors, none of which stuck?

His two arguments are among those cited from wiki, and I answered them.

Yes, I see he is mentioning that. Saints are not infallible (for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa ascribed to the apokatastasis of all things, an Origenist doctrine later condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council).

1) Would have been more credible as an answer, if I had had only Pope St Leo I and not Sts Athanasius and Augustine and the synod of Toledo in AD 400 too.
2) Would have been more to the point if filioque had been condemned as a heresy by an Ecumenical council, as Fifth did (or seems to have done) with apokastasis ton panton (read somewhere the bishops voted a condemnation against Origen, the Pope signed one against the Three Chapters of Ibas, but on the other hand, tradition afterwards seems to have accepted both as condemned)
3) Opens the question whether Photius was infallible in writing Mystagoge.

Further, the filioque is not an acceptable intrusion into the Creed because it was a) never agreed to by an ecumenical council (and those after the seventh hardly count as ecumenical since they were never accepted as such by the East) and b) it is vague in that it allows the heretical interpretation that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father and the Son.

a) i) I:st Synod of Toledo was no general council, nevertheless had no problem making a creed required for signing by Priscillianists;
a) ij) III:rd Synod of Toledo cannot be said to have "insterted" filioque into the Nicene Creed, it recited Nicene Creed with filioque already there;
b) what is heretical about that?

[hansgeorg]

Oh, another blog, wholly without citation. You need to do better than that.

How about posting a comment under Karl's post and asking for a citation?

[hansgeorg]

The numerous problems with the WC and other similar Reformed confessions show the Protestant Reformation to be a false movement from men and not from God.

JM

As does the fact that it presupposes Church was lost and the Reformers had to recover it like archaeologists. Confer Matthew 28:20 pasas hemeras - omnibus diebus - all days.

It seems thread has been gliding to a debate between Catholics and Orthodox, since One Bad Pig is not a Protestant (any more).

As you originated it, feel free to ask what you like, I'd be willing to start a new thread Catholic vs Orthodox, if you like to keep this one on subject.

[Roy]

so on the basis of your personal interpretation of a misremembered reference written five centuries too early, you accused a fellow christian of heresy.

You owe one bad pig a retraction and an apology.

i am not sure my interpretation is personal, since all the saints are in fact asociated with christ.

He hasn't asked for one.

HE SHOULD NOT NEED TO.

lc

[hansgeorg]

HE SHOULD NOT NEED TO.

Quoting self from thread:

11-23-2016, 04:14 PM #68

The words "at least materially" were meant to n o t imply direct accusation, feel free to answer the question you suggested to me. Before doing so, check my preliminary answer on some points

This also disposes of my respect for him, he had implied I should ask one question first and I told him he was free to answer him.

This particular context and wording also disposes of his criticism I gave "unsupported assertions", I was giving preliminaries.

If he could demand I do this or that check up with him first, I could demand the same from him.

I tried to save time.

[One Bad Pig]

How about posting a comment under Karl's post and asking for a citation?

I think I'll just bow out, as you don't seem interested in being careful or providing decent citations. This is not a topic where one can afford to be sloppy.

Regarding the apology Roy wants to you give: I'm not offended, so there is no need to apologize.

[Leonhard]

The 1633 Papal condemnation of Galileo's moving Earth theory correctly expresses the modern Catholic belief in a stationary Earth. The Papal teaching correctly expressed the revelation made by God in the scriptures. As such, the Papal teaching which has never been revoked, remains normative and binding on the faithful.

JM

You insisting that the condemnation of Galileo is a papal decree, or that it carries the authority of the Petrine office, in no way makes it so. It hasn't the signature of the reigning pope, nor the formulae he'd invoke to grant the document the authority of being his own personal judgement. It remains in the end the judgement of one cardinal, who while representing the Church, did not then, by that invocation, bind Catholic believers to that doctrine. Nothing such has occurred.

There is no need to revoke it. Though it has been, and later popes have encouraged the writings of and distributions of heliocentric works, as well as works discussing the general theory of relativity.

As for whether the bible should be interpreted geocentrically, I have no reason to trust your readings of scripture, given how little of an understanding you demonstrate of any other piece of knowledge.

[hansgeorg]

I think I'll just bow out, as you don't seem interested in being careful or providing decent citations. This is not a topic where one can afford to be sloppy.

Regarding the apology Roy wants to you give: I'm not offended, so there is no need to apologize.

There is such a thing as being sloppy in first reply and making it up. That is my constant style, especially in debates. Cfr where the tradition of St Augustine about Hebrews retaining original language was misattributed to the Jewish source Josephus, while real reference would be Testament of Naphthali.