Kline and procession

TimV · #1 (**permalink**) 01-13-2009, 11:00 AM

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):

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and from whom the Son proceeds

**turmeric** · #2 (**permalink**) 01-13-2009, 12:11 PM

Thanks, Tim, I was hoping for a thread on this.

ADKing · #3 (**permalink**) 01-13-2009, 12:20 PM

As has been mentioned on the other thread, Kline's proposal is more like the Son was begotten of the Father and Spirit. Begetting and Procession are different (even if it is mysterious to us how!). Nevertheless, this serves to obsucre the personal properties of the persons. The language of Father and Son communicates something. If, as Kline suggests, the Spirit also begets the Son this becomes less meaningful. Plus there is added confusion in that the Father and the Spirit beget the Son but the Father and the Son spirate the Spirit. This is certainly not an advance over the Nicene creed and suggests that its author is not very well versed in the detailed arguments of the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers on the importance of the personal properties.

***toddpedlar*** · #4 (**permalink**) 01-13-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADKing

As has been mentioned on the other thread, Kline's proposal is more like the Son was begotten of the Father and Spirit. Begetting and Procession are different (even if it is mysterious to us how!). Nevertheless, this serves to obsucre the personal properties of the persons. The language of Father and Son communicates something. If, as Kline suggests, the Spirit also begets the Son this becomes less meaningful. Plus there is added confusion in that the Father and the Spirit beget the Son but the Father and the Son spirate the Spirit. This is certainly not an advance over the Nicene creed and suggests that its author is not very well versed in the detailed arguments of the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers on the importance of the personal properties.

Can you give a rundown of what Kline's argument is for saying this? Where in Scripture is there any indication of the Son being anyone's "begotten" than the Father's?

ADKing · #5 (**permalink**) 01-13-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Can you give a rundown of what Kline's argument is for saying this? Where in Scripture is there any indication of the Son being anyone's "begotten" than the Father's?

Essentially Kline argues that the economic relations of the persons of the Trinity reveal something about their ontological relationships. This idea is orthodox in church history. The Son's pouring out the Spirit and breathing him upon the disciples was an argument put forward to demonstrate that there must be an onotological reality lying behind that. Kline takes this one step further. He argues based on Luke 1.35 that the Spirit, involved in the conception of Christ, economically must have been involved ontologically. He then proceeds to say,

"Supporting this proposal, there is another economic anologue for the immanent order of Spirit and Son, with the Spirit as subject and the Son as object. This analogue is found in the messianic sonship of Jesus (cf. Ps 2:7; Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; Rom 1:3,4). The Spirit performs the anointing of Jesus whereby he is constituted the Christ-Son of God (cf. Isa. 61:1-3; Luke 4:18,19), a process manifested in the avian descent of the Spirit on Jesus at his baptism (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32-34) and the transfiguring overshadowing of Jesus by the Glory-Spirit on the holy mountain ..."

However, Kline's approach serves rather to confuse rather than to elucidate the personal properties.