lstOnTheTriuneGod

LST §3, The Triune God. The renderer adds the section sign.

def lstOnTheTriuneGod : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef "3, The Triune God"

aquinasOnTheSon

Aquinas on whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

def aquinasOnTheSon : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef "I, q. 36, a. 2"

florenceOnTheProcession

Florence's definition of the procession.

def florenceOnTheProcession : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Florence, Session 6 (1439), Laetentur caeli"

Ratings for inference steps

onTheRelation

The step from the texts to a relation between the Spirit and the Son is well supported. LST draws it: the texts "establish a real relation of the Spirit to both Father and Son". It was audited for a reader who grants the texts and denies that the Spirit is related to the Son, and none was found. The Eastern readers affirm the relation in their own terms. Photius grants that the Spirit is the "Spirit of His Son" (Galatians 4:6), "because He is in the Son" and of one substance with him. Staniloae writes that "in the East, it is not denied that at the origin of the sending of the Spirit by the Son there is a special eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit". What they deny is that the relation is one of origin, and the claim the step delivers does not say that it is.

def onTheRelation : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work kibbeyLivingSystematicTheology lstOnTheTriuneGod,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work photiusMystagogy,
        Reference.work vischerSpiritOfGod (Bib.Locus.page 178),
        Reference.work aquinasSumma aquinasOnTheSon],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheReceiving

The step from John 16:14 is rated disputed, conservatively. Aquinas holds it (reply to objection 1). The Eastern readers reject its conclusion by denying a ground: that what the Spirit takes from the Son is his being, and not what he declares. No reader was sought who grants that ground and still denies the Filioque, so the step is not rated above the bottom.

def onTheReceiving : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work aquinasSumma aquinasOnTheSon,
    supporting := [Reference.work photiusMystagogy],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheMission

The step from mission to origin is disputed. Its grounds are that the Son sends the Spirit, that the Spirit is named for him, and that the sending rests on an eternal relation of the Spirit to the Son. Three readers grant all three and deny that the Spirit is from the Son. Moltmann holds that "there must be an inner-trinitarian basis for the temporal sending of the Spirit through Christ", and that the Spirit "receives from the Father his own perfect divine existence (hypostasis), and obtains from the Son his relational form". Bobrinskoy speaks of the Spirit "resting on the Son from all eternity". Staniloae, following Gregory of Cyprus: "though the Spirit's manifestation is by the Son, his coming into existence is not by the Son". Aquinas reaches origin from the relation because "there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin" (I, q. 36, a. 2). He does not hold that every sending shows origin: a person sent proceeds from the sender when the sender is "designated as the principle of the person sent" (I, q. 43, a. 8).

def onTheMission : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work vischerSpiritOfGod (Bib.Locus.pages 165 169),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work vischerSpiritOfGod (Bib.Locus.page 144),
        Reference.work vischerSpiritOfGod (Bib.Locus.pages 183 184),
        Reference.work aquinasSumma (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "I, q. 43, a. 8")],
    tradition := Tradition.easternOrthodox, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheOpposition

The step from distinction is well supported, once its unstated premise is written in. Aquinas argues that "if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him", because the persons are distinguished "only by the relations" and only opposed relations distinguish. It was audited for a reader who grants that, and that the Son is not from the Spirit, and still denies the Filioque, and none was found. Its rejecters deny a ground. Scotus denies that only opposed relations distinguish: a relation, he says, "distinguishes not only from the opposite relation but also from any disparate relation" (Ordinatio I, d. 11, q. 2), though he holds the Filioque on other grounds. Gregory of Nazianzus names each person by "the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding" (Oration 31.9), which distinguishes the Son and the Spirit by their relations to the Father. Neither Scotus nor Gregory is yet in this library's bibliography, so the rating cites Aquinas alone.

def onTheOpposition : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work aquinasSumma aquinasOnTheSon,
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheWords

The Eastern step from John 15:26 is rated disputed, conservatively. Photius holds it. The Western readers reject its conclusion by denying a ground: that the verse, naming the Father, names the whole of the Spirit's source. Augustine asks why the Son said "he proceeds from the Father", and answers, "so as not to imply, He proceeds not from me" (Tractates on John 99.8): he grants the verse and denies that it excludes the Son. The step has not been audited for a reader who grants that ground and still holds the Filioque, as the Western step from distinction was; until it is, it stays at the bottom.

def onTheWords : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work photiusMystagogy,
    supporting := [Reference.work aquinasSumma aquinasOnTheSon],
    tradition := Tradition.easternOrthodox, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

onTheMonarchy

The Eastern step from the monarchy is disputed. Florence denies its ground as it stands: the Father is "the source and principle of all deity", but the Spirit "has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son", and the Greek fathers' "through the Son" signifies the Son "as cause". The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (1995) grants the ground almost word for word, the Father "the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or principle (principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit", and still confesses the Father, "with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds". It does so by distinguishing two senses of "proceed": the Greek ἐκπόρευσις, origin from the Father alone, and the Latin processio, which may be from the Son.

def onTheMonarchy : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work tannerDecrees florenceOnTheProcession,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work pcpcuGreekAndLatinTraditions,
        Reference.work photiusMystagogy],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

The order texts

augustineOnJohn14

Augustine on John 14:28.

def augustineOnJohn14 : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef "On the Trinity I.7.14"

athanasiusOnJohn14

Athanasius on John 14:28.

def athanasiusOnJohn14 : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Against the Arians I.13.58"

Ratings for the steps over the order texts

onTheOrder

The step from the order texts to a real order is well supported. LST draws it: the texts "establish real personal and mediatorial order". It was audited for a reader who grants the texts and denies the order, and none was found. The nearest is the Oneness writer David Bernard (The Oneness of God, 1983, ch. 8), who grants every text, and the sending, the obedience and the final subjection, and reads "Father" and "Son" as the deity and the humanity of one person: "The flesh was subject to the Spirit." The order as stated here does not say whether Father and Son are two persons, so he grants it too. That they are is LST's next question.

def onTheOrder : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work kibbeyLivingSystematicTheology lstOnTheTriuneGod,
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheArianReading

The Arian step is well supported: the reading it starts from already says the Son is less in divinity, and no reader was found who grants the reading and denies that. The dissent is from the reading, which is rated disputed.

def onTheArianReading : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work npnf1v3 augustineOnJohn14,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work calvinJohn2 (Bib.Locus.page 102),
        Reference.work npnf2v3
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I.4")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheTwoForms

Augustine's step is well supported: his reading already says the Son is equal in the form of God, and no reader was found who grants it and holds him less in divinity. Gregory of Nazianzus grants the reading: "to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing" (Oration 30.7).

def onTheTwoForms : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work npnf1v3 augustineOnJohn14,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work npnfCyrilGregory
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 30.7")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheBegetter

Athanasius's step is well supported, because his reading says "not in greatness". Readers who grant only that the Father is greater as the one the Son is from, and still hold him greater in divinity, deny that clause. The creed of Sirmium (357) says the Father is "greater in honour and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, 'The Father that sent Me is greater than I'" (Athanasius, De Synodis 28). Gregory of Nazianzus reports opponents who, granting that "in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son", "deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also", and calls the inference a fallacy (Oration 29.15). So the dispute sits in the reading, which is rated disputed.

def onTheBegetter : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work npnf2v4 athanasiusOnJohn14,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work npnf2v4 (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "De Synodis 28"),
        Reference.work npnfCyrilGregory
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29.15")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheMediatorsState

Calvin's step is well supported: no reader was found who grants that the verse compares the Mediator's humbled state with his glory and holds that it says the Son is less in divinity.

def onTheMediatorsState : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinJohn2 (Bib.Locus.pages 102 103),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onCalvinAgainstTheFathers

Calvin against the Fathers' reply: reading the verse of the Mediator's state, he denies that it speaks of the Son's human nature, and calls the Fathers' reply "neither correct nor appropriate". Rated wellSupported: his reading says that the comparison is of states, not natures, and no reader was found who grants that and reads the verse of the human nature.

def onCalvinAgainstTheFathers : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinJohn2 (Bib.Locus.page 102),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onTheEternalOrder

The step from the order to an eternal order of authority is well supported: its reading already says the order is the outworking of an eternal relationship, and no reader was found who grants that and denies the relationship. The dissent is from the reading. Augustine grants the order and reads it otherwise: the Son "was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance … but in virtue of the Son being from the Father" (On the Trinity IV.20.27, as Grudem quotes it, 2016).

def onTheEternalOrder : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work grudemDoctrinalDeviations (Bib.Locus.page 40),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work grudemEts2016, Reference.work wareFatherSonSpirit],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

onEqualPower

Giles's step is well supported: no reader was found who grants both its grounds and still affirms an eternal submission. Grudem grants the first, the Son's equality in power: the Evangelical Theological Society, of which he was president, confesses the persons "equal in power and glory", and he "zealously" guards "against greater ontological power" for the Father (2016, I.A.4). He denies the second, that eternal submission would deny that equality. Giles concedes that the second is his reading: "I cannot see how anyone could distinguish these terms" (2008, p. 327). So the dispute sits in the reading, which is rated disputed.

def onEqualPower : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work gilesEtsTrinity (Bib.Locus.page 327),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work gilesJesusAndTheFather, Reference.work grudemEts2016],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

Citations

cite

Citation and classification for every atom. Total, so nothing is uncited.

def cite : Claim → AtomMeta