I don't understand the shield comment :)

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology The trinitarian diagram, in which "God" radiates out into the three hypostases c.f., with the Eastern in which the Father forks out into the Son and the Spirit, seperately.

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I should perhaps clearify some more, that with the Western system there is the risk (among other things) of worshipping God's nature, which is perhaps not wrong per say, but we are meant to worship the person of the Father (and of course His only begotten Son, and the Spirit). Ed Sceicinski brings this issue up in his recent talk with Austin (GS) if not in his books. Beau Branson goes into this in detail, which I do not have the smarts to convey. So if this interests you at all check out Beau, because I have already butchered it enough. But if you're not that interested at least take a look at the Augustinian shield.

@@henrik_worst_of_sinners the concept of nature being worshipped is a very good point that is as profound as it is simple

@@henrik_worst_of_sinners "in which "God" radiates out into the three hypostases" This seems to me like an introduction of the fourth hypostasis that radiates into three others. No.

I would assume it's because the Nicene Creed is a central focus of the discussion, and St. Nicholas is probably the most famous Father who was present at the council.

True

There's the potential minor changes were made to book 15 on the trinity. This has been argued. However if they corrupted it they did a bad job

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d8B9eLeGltORk6s.html This is what I was referring to, I went and found it, so now I've clarified my thoughts, since it had been so long since I saw this video. I think you took what I said to refer to book 15, since you mentioned that people have argued that corruption occured regarding book 15 (something I haven't come across before you mentioned it), but from what the rudder says here, it seems natural to me to think that some of his work (without considering book 15) was corrupted. The way the rudder speaks about this issue, the view of the rudder can't be taken to only refer to book 15, if it even considers book 15 corrupted. I'm not even sure St Nikodemos would consider chapter 15 wrong, maybe that issue is just one amongst more recent theologians of our day? Anyway I wonder what you think about this. I think this view harmonises the 'controversy' regarding saint Augustine. Because we could say that what he wrote was orthodox and true, which is why he was embraced also for his theology, but that much much later, Latin heretics corrupted some of his work.

@@dikaioskyrios Well, we have certain letters of his and stuff that were corrupted. But we don't have the entirety of his corpus effected, at least historically. docs.google.com/document/d/1iqWVBGW1Otme1aRx5tX1QAPF6NKihHcGAwCI3ekEWSk/edit

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology Thanks bro I'll check it out

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology I read what you sent and I appreciate it. I wonder if the author of this article is in the process of making a book about corruption of texts? Anyway. I still think the rudder considers the corruption of St Augustine's work to be more widespread, thought not implying the whole body of his works were. Is your position that based on historical research, only some of his letters were corrupted?

The problem is both sides anathematized each other on this particular issue, so they cannot be both right. They could be both wrong, but then, what happened to the "pillar and ground of Truth"? The Church cannot err, so one of the two sides has to be right, and the other wrong. A good way to determine which is which is to look to other subjects of mutual disagreement and take a large-scope view. The Filioque is just one aspect, and might not suffice to fix one's pick.

@@theophan9530 Who said that any church was always right on everything? All throughout the NT, letters were written to churches of various districts pointing out the errors of their ways. Today given it's some 2,000 years later, it is expected that all churches are actually more in error than they ever were. The issue is it's not how much a particular church here on earth is correct, be it 90%, 80%, .... 10%. The issue is being a true and faithful believer in our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ with repentance and admission that we have sinned. That's what's really important. If one doesn't understand that then they are not on the path to Salvation.

The Son is begotten from the Father beyond time. There was not a moment when the Son existed after the Father. As Origen says in his Principles: «To what we then said we shall add only the following remark. That is properly termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea conveyed by John when he says that "God is light." Now His wisdom is the splendour of that light, not only in respect of its being light, but also of being everlasting light, so that His wisdom is eternal and everlasting splendour. If this be fully understood, it clearly shows that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself.» Same idea with the Holy Spirit: «For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son's revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.»

«When we use, indeed, such terms as "always" or "was," or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.» Origen, De Principis, 1:3:4

Yes indeed, and that's the scriptural basis for the clause in the Creed, that's why changing the clause felt like changing the Gospel to many Greeks.

With john 7,37