<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Filioque</title>
	<link>http://www.exvigilare.com/2008/09/13/filioque/</link>
	<description>from vulgar Latin *exvigilare: Latin ex-, ex- + Latin vigilare, to stay awake, from vigil, awake</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Snaggle-Tooth Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.exvigilare.com/2008/09/13/filioque/#comment-3109</link>
		<author>Snaggle-Tooth Jones</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.exvigilare.com/2008/09/13/filioque/#comment-3109</guid>
					<description>Aside from th' fact that th' West changed the Creed without an ecumenical council ('n-att's significant, ol' s. Jones admits), th' whole kerfluffle is much ado 'bout nothin'.  Byzantine umbrage over it all is based on a whole lotta speculative triadology.  But some Orthurdox theologians thank it's possible to embrace the filioque, long as certain thangs are in place, to wit, the "monarchia* of the Father, which even the Augustinian model will admit in its better momints.  

Cain't quite recall th' Orthurdox outfit that has set forth the understaindin' by which th' filioque cud become acceptable to th' Orthurdox mind, but see, thar's a sense in which th' Spirit is "from" the Son and a sense in which He ain't.  Thar's the rub.

But here is th' more important question:  wut do Evangelicals like ol' Ben DeGrow say 'bout th' matter?

;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aside from th&#8217; fact that th&#8217; West changed the Creed without an ecumenical council (&#8217;n-att&#8217;s significant, ol&#8217; s. Jones admits), th&#8217; whole kerfluffle is much ado &#8217;bout nothin&#8217;.  Byzantine umbrage over it all is based on a whole lotta speculative triadology.  But some Orthurdox theologians thank it&#8217;s possible to embrace the filioque, long as certain thangs are in place, to wit, the &#8220;monarchia* of the Father, which even the Augustinian model will admit in its better momints.  </p>
<p>Cain&#8217;t quite recall th&#8217; Orthurdox outfit that has set forth the understaindin&#8217; by which th&#8217; filioque cud become acceptable to th&#8217; Orthurdox mind, but see, thar&#8217;s a sense in which th&#8217; Spirit is &#8220;from&#8221; the Son and a sense in which He ain&#8217;t.  Thar&#8217;s the rub.</p>
<p>But here is th&#8217; more important question:  wut do Evangelicals like ol&#8217; Ben DeGrow say &#8217;bout th&#8217; matter?</p>
<p> <img src='http://www.exvigilare.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
