Philosophy Rugby Team

Last year, for the football world cup I published the article 'Theology Football Squad', a bit of fun combining my love of theology, faith seeking understanding, and an exciting world cup. With it being the rugby world cup this year, it is the turn of philosophy to receive some sporty treatment. So in much the same fashion as before, lets see who has made this year's philosophy rugby team.


Forwards

Loosehead Prop - David Hume

There is no cause for this player to be in the team. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to conclude from past performances his future ones will be equally impressive. Yet, as his reason is clearly enslaved to his passion, the coach has selected Hume to be a fork in the other team’s side.

Hooker - Thomas Hobbes (Captain)

Nasty, brutish and short, he is perfect for the front row. A leviathan in the scrum, he can secure valuable penalties for the team. As a captain he leads as a benevolent dictator, which may come back to hurt him.

Tighthead Prop - Friedrich Nietzsche

Something of a superman, no player can contend with will of Nietzsche! Rejecting weakness, his bench press record has reached new highs. However, his moral compass seems to be awry, being cited for eye gouging.

Second Row - Thomas Aquinas

Built like an ox, this fellow is an intimidating heavyweight of classic rugby. Having developed five ways of playing second row, he is able to adapt his game accordingly. Never committing a penalty, Aquinas naturally follows the law, whilst transubstantiating ordinary teams into winning ones.

Second Row - John Locke

The perfect name for the perfect second row, Locke’s primary qualities make him a dominant force. His secondary properties, however, are a matter of dispute. Like a blank slate, he has bought into the team philosophy, albeit with conditions for a revolution.

Blindside Flanker - William James

With the will to believe, this player can always be counted upon in the most dire circumstances. He belongs to a sporting family, with his brother Henry competing in the American Football ‘Golden Bowl’ every year. A live option, James has a variety of experiences which he can bring in a pragmatic fashion to this side.

Openside Flanker - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Understanding the game, his name is part of the language of rugby. Having a familial resemblance to Richie McCaw, he has lived up to the hype. He has now progressed from his atomistic and factual approach to a more holistic attitude, but still thinks most tactical problems can be resolved linguistically.

No. 8 - Gottfried Leibniz

Quite the individual, Leibniz keeps himself to himself in monadic fashion. Many have argued it is indiscernible why he has been selected, although the coach has argued the fact he has only positive qualities entails he must play.

Backs

Scrum-Half - Aristotle

This scrum-half’s form truly doesn’t matter, as his virtues make him the first name on the team sheet. Having provided the fundamental categories of rugby itself, his efficient and purposeful approach means his performance is always one of great drama.

Fly-Half - Plato

This player’s Form is fantastic! Under the tutelage of Socrates, he has ascended from a realm of shadows to being a player of beauty, justice and the goodness. His rivalry with Aristotle may cause problems.

Inside Centre - Immanuel Kant

Categorically the most tedious player in this team, Kant’s play is very difficult to understand. However, every once in a while one will have a gestalt moment, and recognises the noumenal fact that it is imperative Kant plays. He whole heartedly performs his duty to the team, never treating them as merely a means to an end.

Outside Centre - John Rawls

A player who always finds an original position to start an attack, Rawls is an exciting player. Most critics of him are clearly not behind a veil of ignorance, as his minimum performance is always at its best. A long standing rivalry with Nozick has honed his skills for a more distributive style.

Winger - Rene Descartes

A player who personifies rugby as a thinking man’s game. A classic French winger, his constant focus on his self makes him disregard cooperative play, often treating his teammates as if they were figments of a dream. Despite that, if he gets into space he becomes like an evil demon, terrorising defences with his speed, agility and guile.

Winger - Bertand Russell

Having played for just about every team, Russell has embraced just about every tactic under the sun! He has received universal recognition and definitively described by his positive playing style. It cannot be more than a brute fact that he alone is picked every week by the coach.

Fullback - George Berkeley

Perceiving danger before it arises, he is the ideal fullback. He has a lot of attacking ideas, but struggles to connect them to reality. Has often gone missing in games when no one specifically watches him.

Coach - Socrates

He may not be the best player, but what makes Socrates the best rugby coach is that, unlike everyone else on this list, he managed to convince opponents of his position! With his friendly manner, dialectical approach and inspiring vision, he is the right man to unite a team of egotistical, dogmatic and uptight divas. 

Do you agree with the selections? Have your say in the comments below.

Who is Jesus?

Who is Jesus? Alpha Session 2

Welcome to our second session of New College’s Alpha Course. Hope you have all had good weekend, and are making good progress with any essays you have had. Last week, we looked at the topic ‘is this it?’ discussing what differences there are if there is no God and what it means if YHWH does exist. This week, we want to move on to the topic ‘who is Jesus?’ a question central to Christianity. When approaching this issue we have to be very careful because it easy to make Jesus into whom we want him to be. There is a very real danger that the Jesus we believe in is a product of our fantasy, reflecting our ideals, desires and ambitions. For example, some thinkers, such as Kant, have made Jesus a paragon of morality, not particularly interested in spirituality but rather sought to live the good life, challenging the immorality of the age and being a political revolutionary. Likewise, others have gone in the opposite direction and conceived of Christ as God in flesh whom only descended to die for our sins so we could get into heaven. If you accept all accounts he was a communist, capitalist, anarchist, political revolutionary who was a Jew, atheist, Muslim, Hindu deity, gnostic mediator who was a liar, legend, lunatic or Lord. To avoid believing in a Jesus of our imagination, it is important that when answering who Jesus is to ground it in what he said and did historically, starting from what he said about himself and his actions. This is what I intend to do in the next few minutes.

It is striking that through his public career, Jesus was so concerned with the impending arrival of ‘the Kingdom of God’. Indeed, in the Gospel according to Mark, after being baptised and spending 40 days in the wilderness, he returns to begin his ministry proclaiming: ‘"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!"’ (Mark 1:15). To put this in context, the Jewish people had been in exile, conquered by the Babilonians and now the Romans. This was their punishment for rebelling against God, the rightful sovereign of all nations. We can see this in the prophets, such as Isaiah or Zechariah. This period had been one of great injustice and suffering, with all manner of wickedness being inflicted with the absence of God. However, YHWH had promised to return as King of Israel. He would be exalted amongst the nations, completeing our joy by being the subject of our praise and gratitude. In turn, this worship of the Lord would bring a rule which is just: all evil will be overthrown. Moreover, this kingdom will transform the world with healing love. The people of the kingdom will no longer suffer, and they will be satisfied in the Lord. All life and joy will be theirs, flowing from the heavenly throne of God, king of the world. Those who were weak, marginalised and ill-treated would have a place in the Lord’s kingdom, where all are welcome and loved unconditionally. The idols of the world, sex power wealth and honour, would be overthrown, and the true God confessed by every tongue.

This is what Jesus’ mission was about. He thought he was the agent who God was using to bring in the kingdom. We can see this in all he did: he constantly taught people what the kingdom of God is like through parables; he healed the sick (blind, deaf, paralysed, demons and leprosy), a sign of God’s healing love; he accepted and embraced the rejects and marginalised, a sign of the unconditional love of God for all and His desire to include us in His kingdom; He forgave sins, the guilt which would prevent us from entering His dominion; He was constantly feasting and celebrating, as the Kingdom will be like a great meal where none will go hungry and all will be satisfied; he performed great miracles as signs of the bountifulness and power of God. This is incredibly exciting: Jesus was bringing a transforming rule of love to the world, the person through whom God was making himself king, with all the joy that brings.

But how precisely was God doing this through Jesus? This leads to Jesus’ self-designation of himself as ‘the Son of Man’, a title which his Jewish audience understood as identifying him within the unique identity of God. He applied it to himself more than 80 times in the New Testamet, as the rest of the New Testament does not refer to him by this title, we can be sure it is his idea. The title alludes to a divine figure in the book of Daniel: in a vision Daniel sees God defeat the evil powers of the world, and in doing so is rightfully lifted up and exalted, worshipped and praised as the true God of the cosmos. Daniel then observes the following:

13“I kept looking in the night visions,

         And behold, with the clouds of heaven

         One like a Son of Man was coming,

         And He came up to the Ancient of Days

         And was presented before Him.

14“And to Him was given dominion,

         Glory and a kingdom,

         That all the peoples, nations and men of every language

         Might serve Him.

         His dominion is an everlasting dominion

         Which will not pass away;

         And His kingdom is one

         Which will not be destroyed.

It is through the Son of Man that the Ancient of Days, YHWH, achieves His victory, and so in turn the Son of Man is exalted to sovereign over all the nations. This is important, because in 2^nd temple Judaism God was uniquely the creator and sovereign of all things: only He was ruler of all things, worthy of worship and servitude. By giving over to the Son of Man dominion everlasting, glory and a kingdom, the Son of Man is recognised as a part of the unique divine identity of YHWH, sharing in the name above all others and worthy of praise (Phillipians 2:6-11). This is who Jesus claims to be, the one through whom the victory of God will be made complete, and hence why he can heal the sick, forgive sins, welcome the lost, teach with authority and overthrow the powers of darkness. And as the book of Isaiah alludes to, God’s exaltation will be achieved through the humiliation of the suffering servant – Christ (Deutero-Isaiah). So to conquer evil, Jesus accept his humiliation. We see this in the cross, Christ becomes a curse on a tree for us. His death satisfies the wrath of God for our wrongs, whose punishment is death. This allows us to enter the Kingdom on His account, not our own – he died for our wrongs. He himself explains in the Gospels explains that the Son of Man, himself, will die for the sins of the world, and in doing so will be lifted up. It is this which conquers the power of sin, freeing humanity from its grasp by his human suffering.

But it is in the resurrection we see the final victory won. Death is the ultimate power of evil, a kingdom of its own, ensnaring all life and separating it from the joy of God. Jesus death and resurrection not only freed humanity from sin, but also overthrew the grip of death, and in so doing God’s victory over the world’s powers was complete. It is this, the resurrection, which gives Christians hope, as we can be assured that a) God is victorious and His kingdom will come b) Jesus is who he says he is. If he did not rise from the dead, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic, a man clearly deranged, thinking himself to be in the unique identity of God. Indeed, the Pharisees and chief priests thought he was blaspheming, offending God with nonsense. By rising from the dead, Jesus is shown to be the Son of Man, the first and the last, the great I am, the Lord himself come among us to bring His kingdom to the world. The Lord’s Prayer is answered in this great saga, and Jesus is the bringer of it. Jesus challenges the sin and death of the world, the tyrants and evil powers with the rule of God, which has overthrown all evil and is here amongst us now. We wait for His return, to bring about the end times and the consummation of the inaugurated Kingdom. And we can enter this by placing our trust in Him: that his death does satisfy our sin and His resurrection frees us to worship YHWH freely. That is the invitation which faces us all in the person of Jesus.

Do you agree? Is Jesus really the bringer of the kingdom of God, a key part of the identity of God? Do you think Jesus, the God-man, supplies the victory of YHWH over the evils of the world and frees us from sin and death? 

Scripture and Tradition

For the next few blog posts, I am honoured to be in dialogue with Alexis, a good friend and president of the university Christian Orthodox society. He regularly blogs about theological issues, which you can find at http://alexis-florides.blogspot.co.uk/. In these ensuing discussions, we will attempt to explain and defend our positions on various topics, in some sense articulating what our denomination holds to be true of Christianity. We hope that through this process we and you will grow in faith, understanding and the ability to listen to views contrary to our/your own. It should be an interesting experiment, and I hope you enjoy it as much as we will. (Nathan Hood )

God is categorically distinct from the world. That means that the categories we use to understand creation cannot be applied to God without them being radically redefined in relation to Him. God is not just different from objects and beings, but is has an uncompromisingly different existence, as God is not only the source of our being but the fullness of being itself. Language breaks down in application to the divine, as it is stretched beyond its capacity when used to refer to that which is other to the concepts we know from our worldly environment. This entails that created objects by themselves cannot by their very existence reveal the glory, holiness and majesty of God, as they have a fundamentally different character to the one and unique God. Moreover, as our cognitive and emotional capacities have been corrupted by evil, sin and suffering, they are unable to perceive the presence of Yahweh within the world without change. Thus, due to the categorical difference and effects of creation’s falleness, there is a gap between God and humanity.

This void was broken and bridged by the Word of God. The eternal Word, creator and sovereign over all creation, held nothing for himself before the Father, taking on human flesh and dwelling among us. He did this to save the world, bringing light to darkness, overthrowing the power of death through His life, death and resurrection. He has come to transform the creation to how it ought to be: glorifying and enjoying God. We can participate in this dramatic change by confessing Jesus, the Word, is Lord. In doing so, we are opened to His radical, dynamic and pulsing love, overhauling our past selves to live in union with Him. In being united to Christ, we partake in His death to sin and victory over death in the resurrection, thus giving us eternal life. Moreover, this restores the relationship between us and God, as our sin is paid for in full by the blood of Jesus, the only innocent human. This is the gap between God and humanity bridged; Jesus is ‘God with us’, the new temple, and in His saving action and union with us the fullness of God is brought forth into our lives. It is only in the gift of Himself do we have a) knowledge of God b) a right relationship with God.

Yet we are still created beings, who cannot listen to God without mediation (indeed, the ancient Jews were so terrified of the presence of God they tied a rope to the high priest when he would enter the inner sanctum, in case he died from touching the ark of the covenant by accident!). Whilst the human nature of Jesus has ascended to heaven to receive all due honour and glory until the parousia/end times, we are brought into union with Him by the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws us into this relationship through various instruments. One such gift is the Scriptures. We call them the Word of God because they are witnesses to the life giving Word, Jesus. They have no value in themselves: their purpose is to testify to the glory of God and pointing to the salvation found in Christ, communicated by faith. They are inspired by the Spirit for this purpose. As such, they possess authority on all Christian life, as they reveal the Word sufficiently to humanity. Authored by God, they guide us into salvation, and in doing so transform our lives in uniting us to the Word. As such, the Scriptures have a key role within the life of the Church, as the not only communicate to us the wonder of Christ, but are a dialogue between us and God, an address which calls us to even greater union with Jesus in the dynamism of the Holy Spirit which inevitably gives us new life.

‘Tradition’ is the corpus of the covenant community’s experience and reflection upon the upturning grace of the Word. It is also a gift of the Spirit, who guides the body of Christ into greater truth and love in their walk with God. This means that tradition is an interpretative practice: it is not the revelation (the Word) nor a witness to the Word (Scripture) but an interpretation of that witness. It offers us a hermeneutic for approaching the ineffable yet immanent God. It is guided by the Spirit, such as at the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) where bishops from all over the Roman Empire gathered to clarify whether Christ was divine or not. Led by the Spirit, the assembly favoured the interpretation that Jesus is God, and that He is of one substance with the Father.

However, tradition is human interpretation of the witness the Scriptures provide of the Word. It may be guided by the grace of the Spirit, but it is still the categorisation of revelation by fallible human minds. And as its source is non-divine, it does not derive the same authority as Scripture, for the precisely the fact that human tradition can err and not testify to the Word. Whilst Scripture was also written by humans with minds prone to sin, the Holy Spirit breathed their words, providing the circumstances and context for the author to witness to Christ. By contrast, tradition is a response: whilst it may be guided by the Spirit, this guiding is not equivalent to the inspiration of biblical texts, as it is an interpretation of that already given. Jesus actions affirm this: whilst He would not alter one iota of the Law and prophets, recognising that they were an address from God, He continually reprimanded the Pharisees for displacing faith in God for adherence to human regulations and tradition. Their interpretation of how to respond to God was misplaced, and hence did not honour Yahweh. Hence, Scripture must be normative of tradition, as it cannot fall into sin, and it is only that which further enables the preaching of the Word which is valid tradition. Thus, it is an interpretative matrix, not the Word itself – that title belongs to Christ, and the instrument He uses, the Scriptures.

- Nathan Hood

It is with great pleasure that my good friend (fellow theology student, and devout & active member of the Presbyterian church) Nathan, and I will be sharing a series of joint blog posts, discussing certain theological, and in particular ecclesiological matters. (Our first one being Scripture and Tradition) We hope they are of interest, and will enforce a better understanding and appreciation of each others traditions. Nathan and I both actively, and humbly give much of our time to our churches, and this is a great opportunity to share and discuss the ways in which we grow within our Christian communities and spiritual lives, following Christ: our Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6) in dialogue and love. (1 John 4:8) 

Please visit Nathan's blog at:

http://solumjesum.blogspot.co.uk/

'Divine revelation is spread among men and preserved in the Church by two channels - Holy Tradition, and Holy Scripture.' (Catechism of St Philaret of Moscow)

Holy Tradition is the doctrine of faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual that is handed down by the true believers and worshippers of God, by word and example from one to another - from generation to generation.

The Church of the Living God, as 'the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) is the sure repository of Holy Tradition. All believers are united by the Holy Tradition of faith, and form the 'body of Christ' (1 Cor 12:12). St Irenaeus highlights that the truth can only be found within the Church, and it is Holy Tradition that guarantees this truth and validity:

'We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life.'

Holy Scripture is books written by the Spirit of God through men, sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed 'the Bible' (Βίβλος), signifying that these sacred books deserve attention before all others. 

Which is more ancient, Holy Tradition or Holy Scripture?

The original, and most ancient instrument for spreading divine revelation is Holy Tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself delivered His divine doctrine and ordinances to His disciples by word and example - not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles at first, spreading the faith and establishing the Church of Christ. This emphasises the necessity of Tradition. Books can be made available to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all. 

'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or mouth or by letter.' (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Through the Holy Scriptures, divine revelation is preserved. We read the words of the Prophets and the Apostles, as if we were living and listening with them. 

Why is tradition necessary?

Holy Tradition is what acts as our guide to the right understanding of the Scriptures, and is needed for the right ministration of the Sacraments and the preservation of the sacred rites and liturgical life of the Church.

'Of the doctrines and injunctions kept by the Church, some we have from written instruction, but some we have received from apostolical tradition, by succession...For instance let us mention before all else the very first and commonest act of Christians, that they who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the sign of the Cross.. to turn to the east in prayer..the words of invocation in the change of the Eucharistic bread and of the cup of blessing..Are they not all from this unpublished and private teaching, which our Fathers kept..'   

Saint Basil the Great here highlights the importance of Holy Tradition, passed down from Christ's apostles on Pentecost (Acts 2) , to the Church's fathers and teachers; preserving the orthodox apostolic teaching, worship and practice. 

The fullness of the true faith and doctrine is much too vast to be held in the consciousness of isolated members of the Church. Nathan argues that tradition is 'human interpretation of the witness of Scriptures', however it is clear from the Church's history that the Holy Spirit has been deposited from generation to generation, safeguarding and preserving the true orthodox faith and apostolic teaching - what the Orthodox Church refers to as Holy Tradition. This is not human interpretation; but rather the  very act of the Holy Spirit through time. 

Does Scripture oppose Tradition?

The Holy Scriptures are one of the sources of Tradition. The problem lies in the fact that at the time of the reformation, the western church tried to oppose and separate scripture to tradition. No such opposition should exist! Scripture and tradition belong to the one life of the Church, moved by the same Holy,  Life-Giving and guiding Spirit. It is important to remember that the canon of holy books, which affirms their inspired character is established by Tradition. The inspired nature of Scripture can only be established and guaranteed by our Mother Church. Saint Cyprian of Carthage boldly states 'he can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.' 

The Bible cannot be separate from the Church. The Holy Spirit guides the life of the Church, with its councils - declaring truth. Tradition is both the past and present - it is the never ending work of the Spirit, revealed to the Prophets of the Old Testament, consecrated through the incarnation of the Logos, and remains active in the purification, illumination and theosis of the faithful within Christ's body. The Scriptures are divinely inspired and infallible, not because they are historically or scientifically accurate, but because they are theologically true; and it is through the living Tradition of the Church that we understand these theological truths, and the correct meanings of the texts. This is why the Orthodox Church emphasises the importance of reading the Scriptures within the eucharistic body of Christ. Even though they are divinely inspired, the interpretive operation of the Holy Spirit is lost when one cuts themselves off from the Church and its tradition. It is within the Church, as a loving communion, that we are led to truth, and unity with Christ. Without this tradition, which has preserved, and continues to preserve the faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, protecting Christ's body from heretical teaching, granting us the fruits of the Holy Spirit through the sacramental work of the Church, a pure and loving relationship with God would be unattainable. 

The Filioque

In this essay, I will argue that the filioque insertion should be retained, as it provides the most appropriate account, grammar, of the Spirit’s origin. I shall do this by analysing the teaching of Scripture, and from this contend that the work of Christ and the Spirit points towards the origin of the Spirit in Christ. Moreover, it will be argued the filioque secures the uniqueness of each divine person.

The filioque was introduced into Christian theology by the Roman Church at the Third Council of Toledo (589), without the approval of a recognised ecumenical council. As such, it has become a contentious issue, between Western and Eastern churches. The clause concerns the inner-Trinitarian relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, affirming that the Paraclete proceeds not just from the Father, but also the Son. To critically evaluate whether the filioque insertion was justified, I will employ the following criteria: 1) Does the teaching of Scripture motivate an account of the Trinity where the filioque provides the most appropriate grammar for Christian language; 2) Does the filioque violate the uniqueness of the divine persons as affirmed by Nicene Christianity? If the answer is ‘yes’ to (1) and ‘no’ to (2), then the filioque should be maintained as a guide to speaking about God.^[1]

In pursuing an analysis of the filioque, an immediate problem arises in how to interpret the clause. The term ‘proceeds’ is ambiguous in the relation to God, with a multiplicity of possible definitions for ‘divine procession’ (Stylianopoulos, 1979, p.25). However, the term will denote an ontological origination in this paper. That is, to say x proceeds from y is to say that y is the source of x’s existence. Procession refers to the source of the Spirit’s existence as a hypostasis who receives their substance from an Other; it denotes the movement of logical priority within the Godhead (Moltmann, 1980, p.183). On this reading, to say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to contend that the Spirit’s existence is grounded in the persons of the Father and the Son.

To begin this evaluation, it is helpful to uncover why Nicene churches ascribe to the Spirit the property of proceeding from the Father. This doctrine is driven by the recognition that the Spirit is sent by the Father out of love, in order to empower Christ’s earthly ministry and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was conceived by the Spirit (Lk 1:35), baptised in the Spirit (Mt 3:16), lived by the Spirit (Lk 10:21; 1Pe 3:18), his human nature was empowered by the Spirit as seen in his preaching (Lk 4:18; Mt 12:18), miracle working (Ac 10:38), and his vindication (Ro 1:4). Incarnated, Jesus was assisted in his human nature through the reception of the Spirit in order to complete his instantiation of the Kingdom, with the Spirit sent by the Father as an expression of the Father’s love for the obedient and dutiful Son.

Furthermore, the Creed identifies that the Father sends the Spirit to the community of faith after the exaltation of Christ, so as to bring God’s people into the divine life. Christ tells the disciples that they shall receive a ‘comforter’, who will be sent by the Father to dwell with them on Earth forever (Jn 14:16). The Spirit will guide believers into all truth, directing their lives so as to draw them into the communion of the Trinity (Jn 16:13). The Spirit will indwell the Christian, sanctifying them in the desire to do God’s will, predisposed to behave in ways which glorify and enjoy the Lord (2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2) (Lewis, 1979, p.61). Thus, the Father is understood to be sending the Spirit to transform the world through those who are in Christ. If this is God’s self-revelation, it follows that the pattern of the Father sending the Spirit to Christ and the Church reflects the inner life of the Trinity. That is, the Father must breathe forth the Spirit within the divine life, being the origin of the Paraclete’s existence. Thus, the relationship of the Father to the Spirit in Scripture, suggests that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

It is my contention that we observe a similar sending of the Spirit from the Son in Scripture.  The love between the Father and Son is the source of spiration (Augustine, 2012, 15.17.27–18.32). On the one hand, the Father’s love for the Son is shown in the gift of the Spirit, to empower Christ’s ministry.  On the other, Christ’s love for the Father is expressed in his self-offering through the Spirit, which manifests itself in the revelation of the Father and the redeeming of the world. All of his doings were intended to proclaim the glory of the Father (Jn 14:9). As the High Priest, ‘He offers to the Father that worship, that obedience, that life of love in unbroken intimate communion, which we cannot offer’ (Torrance, 1996, p.37). Furthermore, Christ offers himself as a sacrifice to fulfil the love of God for the world (Lk 22:42), climaxing in his crucifixion (Lk 23:46). Jesus’ works reciprocate the love of the Father; his intercessions to the Father for the world are made in the Spirit. Indeed, if God is love (1 Jn 4:8), then one would expect the communion of the Father and Son to be shared love, as expressed in the mutual sending of the Spirit (Barth, 1936, p.557). Thus, as we identified the Spirit’s procession from the Father with the Father’s expressed love for the Son, by implication we should identify the Spirit’s origin also with the Son, as the Spirit enables Christ to express his love for the Father.

Furthermore, the continuing activity of Christ in the community of faith indicates that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. As has been said, the Father sends the Spirit to God’s people in the aftermath of the ascension to make them citizens of heaven. The question arises as to how this process is enacted (Athanasius, 2012, ch.54). To be in the Spirit means one is made a ‘partaker’ in the divine life, where one is assumed into a ‘sphere of the direct and immediate activity of God’ (Torrance, 1975, p.234-5). This indwelling is only possible because of the incarnation; when the Son took on a human nature, ‘the self-sanctification of Christ through his own Spirit’ enabled humanity to receive the Spirit (Ibid.) That is, the ‘radical liberty and creativity’ found in Jesus’ reconstruction of the human being and its identity is witnessed by the Church in the activity of the Holy Spirit (Williams, 2000, p.140). The Church’s experience of renewal by the indwelling presence of God’s love (Eph 1), initiated by the incarnation and continued by the Paraclete, leads to the conclusion that there is a mutual intimacy of the Son and Spirit in the immanent Trinity (Gal 4:6). Moreover, the Son sends the Spirit into the world to continue the instantiation of God’s Kingdom (Jn 1:33b; Acts 2:33). Thus, the salvific work of Christ, as continued by the Spirit, suggests that the most appropriate grammar for describing this event is by inserting the filioque clause. Therefore, the Son’s love for the Father and Jesus’ prolonged presence in the community of faith through the Spirit motivates the use of the filioque when using language about God.

One objection to this clause is that it undermines the uniqueness of the three persons, which is essential in Nicene Christianity. In particular, it can be said to compromise the individuality of the Father. As both Father and Son are affirmed to be the source of Paraclete’s procession by the filioque, it follows on this interpretation that they are both the origin of the Spirit’s divine existence. This indicates that there is a ‘double procession’ within God: that from the Father, and that from the Son. Yet this diminishes the distinguishing features of the Father. The individual properties in terms of ontological origin determine the distinctness of each divine person. The Father is understood to be ‘unbegotten’ or uncaused, the Son is ‘begotten’ or generated, and the Spirit ‘proceeds’. Thus, the Father is to be understood as the unique source of the divine existence, as the origin of the other two persons (Stylianopoulos, 1979, p.26). This is ‘his hypostatic distinguishing quality’, that which makes Him different (Ritschl, 1979, p.12). If we affirm that the Son is also the source of the Spirit’s being, then we compromise the Father’s unique role as the sole cause of existence within the Godhead. By making the Son an origin like the Father, the filioque degrades the movement of direction within God of moving out from the Father towards the Son (Fiddes, 2000, p.80). Hence, it is argued the filioque is inappropriate theologically as it violates the uniqueness of the Father, a mark of Nicene Christianity.

However, I will contend that the filioque actually secures the uniqueness of the Father, Son and Spirit. Leibniz’s Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles states that:

For any P, Q; if P has exactly all the same properties as Q, then P is identical with Q. That is, P and Q are the same substance. (Leibniz, 1969)

The allegation made against the filioque is it makes the Father the same person as the Son, and thus violates the distinctiveness of the persons as affirmed at Nicea. However, utilising Leibniz’s Law one can refute this claim: the Father cannot be the Son because He is unbegotten, and the Son cannot be the Father because He is begotten. That means they do not share all the same properties, and so are unique persons. Furthermore, the Spirit is not identical with the Father or the Son; whereas the Spirit possesses the property of proceeding from the Father and the Son, neither the Father nor the Son retains this property. Thus, each person’s hypostatic distinguishing qualities are maintained, and thus the uniqueness of the persons is secured by the filioque.

By contrast, the neglect of the filioque undermines the distinction of the Son and Spirit. For if the Son is generated by the Father, and the Spirit is generated from the Father, then there is no property to distinguish the persons: they are the same hypostasis. Proponents of this position often appeal to the ‘logical priority’ of the Son over the Spirit, contending whereas the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father (Nazianzus, 1994, 5.25). That is, the mode of generation is different in that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. However, since the generation of the Son and Spirit is prior to creation, there is no method to distinguish begetting and procession. For if the generation of the Son and Spirit is simultaneous, their origins are existentially identical, entailing their ontological origination is the same. Nevertheless, if the Father and the Son are the source of the Spirit’s existence, we can differentiate being begotten from proceeding in relation to God; being begotten denotes generation solely from the Father, whereas procession refers to the derivation from both the Father and the Son. Given this, the Son is begotten, whereas the Spirit must proceed. Therefore, the filioque ensures the uniqueness of the divine persons, and as such does not violate individuality of the divine persons.

In conclusion, I have argued that the filioque should be affirmed as the most appropriate grammar for speaking about the Spirit’s origin. I contended that the teachings of Scripture motivate us to employ the filioque due to the communion of Father and Son as expressed in the sending and utilising of the Spirit in the life of Christ and the close activity of the Son and Spirit in redemptive activity. The objection was raised that the filioque may compromise the individuality of the Father, thus violating a teaching of Nicene theology. Yet it was demonstrated that the clause secures the distinct reality of the divine persons, in contrast to opposing views. Therefore, because the filioque is motivated by Scripture and does not compromise the distinctness of the persons, it follows it should be regarded as the best conceptual framework for describing the source of the Spirit.

Bibliography

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, translated by Behr, J., New York: USA, St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2012

Augustine, On the Trinity, editors. Boer, P. A. and Shedd, W., translated by Haddan, A. W., Veratitis Splendor Publications, 2012

Barth, Church Dogmatics: 1/1, Edinburgh: UK, T. & T. Clark, 1936

Bolotov, V., The Comforter, translated by Jakim, B., Michigan: USA, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004

Fiddes, P., Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity, London: UK, Darton, Longman and Todd, 2000

Leibniz, G., Philosophical Papers and Letters, edited and translated by Loemker, L., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1969

Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, Glasgow: UK, William Collins Son & Co Ltd., 1952

Moltmann, J., The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, translated by Kohl, M., London: UK, SCM Press, 1980

Nazianzus, G., ‘Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit’, in Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers volume 2.7, edited by Schaff, P., translated by Browne, C. G., and Swallow, J. E., Hendrickson Publishers, 1994

Rahner, K., The Trinity, translated by Donceel, J., London: UK, Herder and Herder, 1970

Ratzinger, J., Jesus of Nazareth, London: UK, Bloomsbury, 2007

Ritschl, D., ‘The History of the Filioque Controversy’, in Conflicts about the Spirit, edited by Kung, H. and Moltmann, J., New York: USA, Seabury Press, 1979

The English Standard Version Bible, New York: USA, Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Stylianopoulos, T., ‘The Orthodox Position’, in Conflicts about the Spirit, edited by Kung, H. and Moltmann, J., New York: USA, Seabury Press, 1979

Torrance, J. B., Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, Carlisle: UK, Paternoster, 1996

Torrance, T. F., Theology in Reconciliation, London: UK, Geoffrey Chapman Publishers, 1975

Williams, R., On Christian Theology, Oxford: UK, Blackwell Publishing, 2000

---

[1] This paper includes assumptions which are beyond the scope of this essay to defend:

·         The Scriptures alone are authoritative, supreme and sufficient for Christian faith and praxis.

·         The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity (Barth, 1936, p.548; Rahner, 1970, p.22).

Theology Football Squad

This world cup I have really enjoyed. The games are exciting, the teams tend to have an attacking philosophy and there have been lots of goals. Given the joy it has brought, I have decided to combine it with my studies to come up with a theology football squad. So without further ado, here it is.

Theologians United: Starting Eleven

Defence

Goalkeeper – Athanasius of Alexandria

A world class keeper, Athanasius is a stalwart shot stopper. This was vicariously demonstrated at the Nicene Cup, where he saved attempt after attempt from the talented playmaker Arius. With a determined yet composed mind-set, this boy’s courage in the face of adversity makes him the first name on the team sheet.

 

Right-back – Anselm of Canterbury

This player will never settle for anything less than the greatest conceivable result. Always to be relied upon, Anselm will not be satisfied with his performance without a complete sacrifice on his part, as demonstrated by his excellent marshalling of inform striker Guanilo last week.

Centre-back – Thomas Aquinas

Coached by Aristotle, it is no shock that he is at the heart of the defence. Don’t be fooled by his analogical interviewing style – this man is the real deal. Aquinas’ natural ability manifests itself in working with the players around him up towards the desired victory. His athleticism, ability to read the game, strength, speed and his prolific goal-scoring from set plays are just five proofs of why he should be in the team.

 Centre-back – Augustine of Hippo

Following a disastrous move from city to city and his latest off-pitch confession, it is a real surprise Augustine has made the starting line-up. Having overcome his original sins, it was thought he had turned a corner, but recent events suggest otherwise. However, his past record of being able to ascend to lofty heights from even the darkest moments of his career may have inspired the manager to choose him, knowing that a bit of grace is what this player needs to shine.

Left-back – N. T. Wright

This lad has offered a fresh, new perspective on how to be a left back, causing a division of opinion amongst commentators and players alike. Having had his techniques undermined and exploited by strikers Piper and Carson, in recent seasons Wright has had to reign in his novel approach and has begun to incorporate more traditional elements to his game. Nevertheless, with a tremendous output, jovial attitude and vast experience, the opposition must be wary of his prowess.

Midfield

Right Midfield – John Wesley

Something of a perfectionist, this winger has developed his game to a high standard. Having been ridiculed for his training methods, his play has silenced the critics with its sublime organisation combined with exuberant performances. His roaming attacks strangely warm the heart, igniting a spirit of attacking football.

Central Midfield – John Calvin (Captain)

Having instituted a reformation in the fortunes of Geneva United, it was predestined that Calvin would have his name on the team sheet. Having had triple honours at club level, it is now time for him to make his mark on the world stage. Emphasising simplicity, this man’s ability to dictate play and allow others to build upon his work is impeccable.

Central Midfield – Karl Barth

A revelation of late, this dogmatic midfielder plays off Calvin and gets stuck into the action. Following the manager’s word, he is a reliable, yet visceral player, enforcing his side’s dominance. However, this abrasive style can often cause dialectical dischord between him and his fellow teammates.

Left Midfield – Cornelius Van Til

It was presupposed before this column that Van Til would be selected, as his skill is truly transcendental! Through this one man, many other players are united through his excellent distribution of the ball, electric movement and game management. One risk with his selection may be his long time feud with Barth, ignited by Van Til calling him irrational after a club match.

Attack

Forward – Martin Luther

The manager’s faith in Luther has been fully justified as he has had some stunning performances of late. Only he can grace the pitch with such speed, aggression and skill. A great communicator, Luther leads by example and inspires others to get the best out of their attributes. However, he does not see the coach as the final authority on tactical matters, which could prove a problem if he disagrees with the manager’s interpretation on how to win the game.

Forward – Soren Kierkegaard

Whilst his form is objectively uncertain, this player’s subjective commitment to the cause is unquestionable. Modelling his style on the father of football, Abraham, Kierkegaard is a classic centre forward. Regardless of the guise he has assumed, he always pops up in the right position to score. However, with his fragile temperament, it was a leap of faith on the manager’s part to pick him for this important match.

Tactical View

Substitutes and Management

Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa all find themselves on the bench today. Whilst these three persons have a perichoretic chemistry, the nature of team does not suit their ticci-tacca style. However, if the team needs a change, these top players of Cappadocia F.C. all have a lot to give.

Also substitutes are Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. A liberating presence on the team, these two attackers can open up oppressive defences to great effect. However, the beautiful game requires a revolution before they truly have a place in football.

Duns Scotus may make his debut today. This lad’s nominal quality is far exceeding most others, with his precision passing a delight to observe. His presence on the park is universal, and his ability to formally distinguish the flaws in the opposition is a marvel to behold.

In form striker Francis of Assisi is on the bench. Whilst he spends his time with lots of birds, this man’s charity on the ball is to be admired. Moreover, his work ethic is to be praised, carrying on even when he is faced with stigmatic injuries.

Manager – Paul of Tarsus

No one else could manage a side with so many big names. Having been a world class player, being an extremely zealous footballer, Paul has brought that ethic into his management, encouraging his players to unite in spirit. Moreover, he has successfully coached Thessalonica F.C., Corinthians, Ephesus United among other clubs. Recognising that a team is like a body, he has a good balance to his squad’s. Yet most importantly, he engenders a philosophy within his players to be living sacrifices for each other.

Do you agree with this selection? Who would you choose? Leave your comments below, and thanks for reading.

Thanks to my father for contributing to some of the selections.