Re: [revelation-list] Osborne - Filioque in Rev. 3:1
- on 4/15/03 4:29 PM, John C. Poirier wrote:
> Perhaps there is a problem with the "daisy-chaining," as you call it, butThanks John,
> doesn't the greater difficulty lie in the assumption that the "sending" of the
> Spirit in a NT spirit christology is at all related to the emanationist
> identification of the Spirit in the councils' Trinitarian theology? For Luke
> (or anyone else) to envision Jesus sending the Spirit doesn't imply that he
> thinks of the Spirit as proceeding from the Son within the ontological economy
> of the Trinity.
Yes, I see what you are saying. Two things that don't tie together. My
mistake, clearly not Osborn's.
Perhaps then, one should not connect Osborne's discussion of this in any way
with the Filioque controversy. I admit that discussions of the "ontological
economy of the Trinity" are hard to understand.
So if we factor out the Filioque issue and forget the creeds and look rather
at "the 'sending' of the Spirit in a NT spirit christology," if we do all
of this then I think the objections still hold.
Thanks for the clarification.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062