A position should be accepted or rejected based on whether it is true or not. While some do apply that dictum in overly simplistic ways and one should be aware of importing other categories into the discussion, there seems something intuitive about accepting or rejecting a position based on whether it is true or false. To put it negatively: the human brain is probably not wired to knowingly believe as true what one knows to be false.
This is applicable when one evaluates various theological positions. To reject a position based on “cultural” reasons is inadequate, for example, especially if its own truth claims have not been tested. The following issues are what I—and others to whom I have consulted for advice—call “dealbreakers.” They function similarly to “defeaters” in philosophy. If I can show that one system of beliefs (B1) is incompatible with another system of beliefs (B2; the conclusions reached by the church concerning the Trinity and Christology), then either B1 or B2 has to go.
The early church reasoned that nature has a will and thus an energy. Therefore, since Christ has two natures, Christ also has two wills and two energies. The heresy of monotheletism, though, said Christ only had one will. Taking it a step further, a more specific heresy said Christ only had one energy. This heresy is known as…mono-energism, or monergism.
Someone could respond, “But that’s not how monergism is being used today. All that this monergism connotes is that God is sovereign in salvation—we, too, believe that Christ has two wills and two energies.” However, as Demetrios Bathrellos notes in The Byzantine Christ, some adherents of mono-energism also held to two energies in Christ; they simply subsume Christ’s human energy under the work of the divine energy. Does this sound familiar? Does this not sound like the claim that “God makes my will willing to will God”? Isn’t this a form of “effectual calling”? In any case, there is no true synergism, not only in our salvation, but in Christ himself.
The Son Becomes the Father…or Arian
Triadic reasoning says that whatever is common to the divine essence is applicable to all. Whatever is particular to the person is particular to that person. The three persons of the Trinity do not share the divine essence, but rather each person fully possesses the divine essence.
In light of the above, we should briefly return to St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Eunomius. Eunomius had, in a move similar to Arius, identified causality and generation, not with the hypostasis of the Father, but with the divine essence. This had several consequences: the Son was not of the same essence as the Father since the Son does not generate a Son. Modern day Filioquists reject that conclusion but accept the same form of reasoning. In this sense with regard to the Filioque we see a “transfer of hypostatic properties.” In other words, the ancients had spoken of the Father’s properties as generation, but with the Filioque both Son and Father have the same hypostatic properties.
The Bond of the Church is the…Pope?
If the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and if analogies between the eternal Trinity are valid in the temporal realm (which most defenders of the Filioque, both Protestant and Catholic, affirm), then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Holy Spirit and grace proceed from the Pope. Of course, Protestants reject the claim that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, but instead of one pope one often sees many popes from whom the Holy Spirit, as well as binding decisions on the church, proceed.
You Can’t Use the Referee to Score Points for Your Team…
(Unless you umpire freshman baseball games in high school). I’ve dealt with the epistemological problems with sola scriptura elsewhere. The argument runs along these lines: One cannot know the contents of Scripture simply by using Scripture—there is no scriptural argument for the Table of Contents page. Secondly, you cannot interpret “Scripture by the clearer parts of Scripture” because you cannot know which parts are the clearer parts of Scripture except by an arbitrary appeal to a certain passage.
Saying the argument another way: if you and another believer disagree about a biblical passage, who (or what) is the referee? It will not do to appeal to the Bible, for that is the very issue under contention. Some might say the court of appeal is the methods of historical-grammatical interpretation. The problem with this method is that the Bible itself uses other methods of interpretation, and that this knowledge is not acquired by “scripture alone.” It is, if you will, a “tradition of men.” It is a prestigious tradition, but simply that.
Simply saying that such and such group is ethnic and phyletist may be true in your particular experience (though it is funny how the most crass forms of American evangelical phyletism are perfectly acceptable), but that charge is utterly irrelevant concerning the truth claims at stake. Saying that the Reformers were thinking new thoughts biblically is commendable for them, but if their particular thoughts contradict with what the church has concluded about Triad and Christ (see the point on defeaters above), too bad for them. It does not matter what they get right. Heresies tend to have deconstruct themselves along the dialectic.
To be fair, there are still some problems for me—problems I cannot yet address, but at least I am trying to pursue them along epistemological and truth-claim lines.
 A defeater is a belief (B1) that is held to be incompatible with another belief (B2), or it can be any form of evidence to undercut a position, if not outright refuting it.
 On the other hand, though, many Reformed are not affirming that. They only pick and choose which councils they accept. For example, they like the Third Council, except where it venerates the Theotokos.
 Unfortunately, Eunomius’ trap had thus been set. Later theologians would indeed reason that if the Son did not cause another person he was not fully God.
 In fact, using a strict historical-grammatical method would rule out much of Galatians 4.