This entry was posted on Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm and is filed under Personal Favorites. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
As for the first thing, yes, Kline coined a new term “endoxation” (dox=glory), to be a parallel to “incarnation” (carn=flesh), for describing situations in which the Holy Spirit is manifested physically/visibly, i.e. overshadowing creation in Gen 1:2, the glory cloud and pillar of fire, the dove, Pentecost, etc. He wrote a whole book called “Images of the Spirit”, where he explored this concept in relation to man’s being an image bearer. You can hear Kline himself lecture about it; search this index for “endoxation”.
As for the second thing, I don’t know anything about it, or about the context. But fill in the blank: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of BLANK in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.
(a) The Father
(b) The Holy Ghost
(c) a Roman Soldier
So where’s the heresy? If he’s just saying “There’s a sense in which you could say that the Son proceeds from the Father and Spirit,” is that so wrong? I guess it does seem unwarranted to take the Spirit’s role in the incarnation, and lever it back into the eternal begetting of the Son. But again, I can’t speak to the context.
I just stumbled across this post, and I’m halfway through the book in question. The quotes are accurate, but the context could use some improvement. While there can be legitimate debate as to whether Kline’s proposals constitute a proper exegesis of scripture, they certainly are not “a denial of the teachings of the ancient Catholic Church.” That which the ancient church never addressed can hardly be denied. Specifically on the second point, Kline does argue that the Spirit is the second person of the trinity; however, contra the Reformed Covenanter, he does not claim that the Son is not the second person. The apparent contradiction is resolved in the senses in which he sees each of these to be the case. In regards to spiration, Kline agrees with the [Western] church that the Son is the second person. His claim about the Spirit being the second person is in regard to filiation. Speaking to the concern of the previous commenter, his warrant for levering the Spirit’s role in the incarnation back into the eternal begetting of the Son is explained in the paragraph immediately preceding that which was quoted. He writes:
“In formulating the doctrine of the Trinity the church has seen in the economic relations of the three persons analogues of their eternal immanent forms of personal subsistence. In particular the Son’s sending of the Spirit at Pentecost-symbolically anticipated in Jesus’ breathing the Spirit on his disciples (John 20:22)- has benn regarded as warrant for including the Son (cf. ‘filioque’) along with the Father as a subject in the eternal spiration of the Spirit. It is through the Son that the Father spirates the Spirit. In terms of this procession of the Spirit, the Son is the second person of the Trinity and the Spirit the third.”
I’m still mulling over whether or not I can agree with Kline’s proposals. The one area I do not agree is his desiteratum concerning “a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit.”
While I affirm the filioque, failure to do so, as with the Eastern church, does not constitute heresy. The Western church never should have elevated it to creedal status. Consequently, the inadvisability of Kline’s suggestion, even if the doctrine behind it should prove perfectly orthodox, goes without saying.
As for the first thing, yes, Kline coined a new term “endoxation” (dox=glory), to be a parallel to “incarnation” (carn=flesh), for describing situations in which the Holy Spirit is manifested physically/visibly, i.e. overshadowing creation in Gen 1:2, the glory cloud and pillar of fire, the dove, Pentecost, etc. He wrote a whole book called “Images of the Spirit”, where he explored this concept in relation to man’s being an image bearer. You can hear Kline himself lecture about it; search this index for “endoxation”.
As for the second thing, I don’t know anything about it, or about the context. But fill in the blank: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of BLANK in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.
(a) The Father
(b) The Holy Ghost
(c) a Roman Soldier
So where’s the heresy? If he’s just saying “There’s a sense in which you could say that the Son proceeds from the Father and Spirit,” is that so wrong? I guess it does seem unwarranted to take the Spirit’s role in the incarnation, and lever it back into the eternal begetting of the Son. But again, I can’t speak to the context.
I just stumbled across this post, and I’m halfway through the book in question. The quotes are accurate, but the context could use some improvement. While there can be legitimate debate as to whether Kline’s proposals constitute a proper exegesis of scripture, they certainly are not “a denial of the teachings of the ancient Catholic Church.” That which the ancient church never addressed can hardly be denied. Specifically on the second point, Kline does argue that the Spirit is the second person of the trinity; however, contra the Reformed Covenanter, he does not claim that the Son is not the second person. The apparent contradiction is resolved in the senses in which he sees each of these to be the case. In regards to spiration, Kline agrees with the [Western] church that the Son is the second person. His claim about the Spirit being the second person is in regard to filiation. Speaking to the concern of the previous commenter, his warrant for levering the Spirit’s role in the incarnation back into the eternal begetting of the Son is explained in the paragraph immediately preceding that which was quoted. He writes:
“In formulating the doctrine of the Trinity the church has seen in the economic relations of the three persons analogues of their eternal immanent forms of personal subsistence. In particular the Son’s sending of the Spirit at Pentecost-symbolically anticipated in Jesus’ breathing the Spirit on his disciples (John 20:22)- has benn regarded as warrant for including the Son (cf. ‘filioque’) along with the Father as a subject in the eternal spiration of the Spirit. It is through the Son that the Father spirates the Spirit. In terms of this procession of the Spirit, the Son is the second person of the Trinity and the Spirit the third.”
I’m still mulling over whether or not I can agree with Kline’s proposals. The one area I do not agree is his desiteratum concerning “a reference to the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the filioque phrase in the creedal account of the spiration of the Spirit.”
While I affirm the filioque, failure to do so, as with the Eastern church, does not constitute heresy. The Western church never should have elevated it to creedal status. Consequently, the inadvisability of Kline’s suggestion, even if the doctrine behind it should prove perfectly orthodox, goes without saying.