TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
From a current thread. Should we change all of our most ancient and basic Confessions to make Kline apologists happy? Or am I misreading what Kline is saying?
From the WCF (and just about every other orthodox confession except those of the East who (I think) still leave the last three words out):
Kline as quoted by Rev. King
So, it is advisable and perhaps even necessary to incorporate Kline's theory into our most basic creeds that would read how? The filioque is the last three words of
So, would it look like this?
From the WCF (and just about every other orthodox confession except those of the East who (I think) still leave the last three words out):
The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Kline as quoted by Rev. King
The fathering of the incarnate Son by the edoxate Spirit warrants inclusion of the Spirit along with the Father as a subject in the eternal divine begetting, the generating process of which the Son is the object. It is a desiteratum, therefore, that a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit find a place in our confessional formulation of the eternal filiation of the Son.
So, it is advisable and perhaps even necessary to incorporate Kline's theory into our most basic creeds that would read how? The filioque is the last three words of
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
So, would it look like this?
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds