Religion Essay Example: Filioque Controversy, Iconoclast Controversy

The filioque controversy traces to the division of the churches emerging from the divergent views of conceiving and describing the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. The West and East churches profess to the Nicaea faith to express their understanding of God. A division emerged with the addition of the word Filioque to the creed to confess the Holy Spirit emerges of the Father. Its addition became a basis of their catechesis and theological teachings in the understanding of the Holy Trinity dogma. Conversely, the Eastern Christians deny the existence of Trinitarian theology as expressed and incorporated into the Wests canonical formulation. The Filioque controversy emerges from the difference in views that each side of Christendom finds lacking and inaccurate in the other.

The Filioque controversy yields from divisions capable revealed as different lens comprising geo-politics, linguistic and political borders. The division between the Western and Eastern Churches emerges from the different locations. The different places bring with them exposure to different cultures. Although the differences appeared minimal, the fall of Roman Empire in 405 caused the widening in political leadership. The West embraced the Germanic as the East retained their Greek identity. The West saw the Feudal governance replace the imperial governance. For this reason, the tension associated with conflict involving the Barbarian and Hellenistic cultures.

The presence of linguistic differences where the Greek East and Latin West translated into how they profess their cultural philosophy. The westerners missed the aspects captured in the Eastern Trinitarian formulation. It affected the expression of persona and hypostasis key to Trinitarian debates within the first five centuries. The eventual conquest words of the German conquest and subsequent acculturation of individuals regarded non-Latin. It led to subsequent confusion spread to the different understanding and theological interpretation. It spilled to cause visible schism seen in Origen-Cappadocian and Tertullian-Augustine aspects on Trinitarian formula. The Origen-Cappadocian formula expresses the traditional trinity understanding. God the Father is perceived origin and creator of all things. The son is regarded the only of the Father tasked with redeeming the world. The formula regards the Spirit is the sanctifier. The tradition behind this formula emphasizes the existence of genetic identity of the Son versus the exporeuthein nature of Holy Spirit.

The Terutullian-Augustine model embraces the Latin by translating ousia as substantially while hypostasis becomes the persona. This eliminates the plurality of God to prioritize unity. It emphasizes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The westerners illustration appears to blur the differences drawn between the Father and the Son. It contradicts the Easterners stance to indicate how the spirit and son have different personhood. The aspect of interpreting begotten and proceeding uniquely emerges of the need to counter Westerners move to blur such differences. Blurring the lines involving the Father and the Son makes it appear they are both sources of divinity hence undermining the identity of the Father. The Latins view the Father as the source of entire divinity while the Holy Spirit proceeds as a feature provided to the Son through the Father. The agenda of this provision aims to protect the unit in God oneness and safeguarding full divinity of Christ and equality to the Father.

The Filioque Christianity emerges of the orthodox doctrine and legitimacy of its inclusion in the Nicene Creed. The issues merged following the admission of the Filioque phrase and approval of its insertion following the eleventh-century approval by the pope. The Latins and Greeks drew their support for filioque from the New Testament to illustrate the procession of Holy Spirit. It drew rejection from the Orthodox citing the absence of explicit illustration of the double procession, hence considered the filioque as erroneous doctrine theologically. The Church of the East excludes the son in its Creed leading to the schism in the church. The controversy received support from the early Church Fathers writings to the Holy Spirit procession and Orthodox idea. It was evident the statement could support the source of Holy Spirit being from Father and Son as principal causes or identifying the Father as the source through the Son.

According to Tertullian writing at the onset of the third century, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were demonstrated to share in the divinity of power, quality, and substance. Such was conceived as flowing from the Father but conducted by the Son to the Holy Spirit. Hilary of Poitiers observed that the Father is the source of Holy Spirit subsequently sent by the son. Hilary made references from John 16:15 that says All things the Father owns are mine; therefore I said that the spirit should take from what is mine and declare it to you. To the contract, Ambrose of Milan writings cast the Spirit as proceeds associated with the Father and Son that are inseparable from one another.

The Roman Catholic Church embraces the Church Fathers writings by accepting both phrases use. It embraces from the Father and through the Son since it considers their use no to affect the reality of Christian faith. They perceive the phrases were expressing similar in their objective though expressing the faith in different ways. Beyond the Augustine of Hippo writings, filioque doctrine has become the basis of Latin Trinitarian theology. This has not stopped it from drawing controversy including the photian disagreement, inclusion in the Roman rite, Eat-West Schism, through councils of Jerusalem in 1583 AD and 1672 AD. Recent developments to resolve the controversy in 2003 during the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation admitted limitations in the definitive assertions regarding inner life of God. Also, they resolved that both sides should refrain from labeling the traditions of each side heretical. The position reveals that Filioque should not be regarded as the church-dividing issue since it only expresses same faith in different ways.

Iconoclast Controversy

Ideally, the iconoclastic ideology was greatly propelled by the strong political influences introduced by Leo III at around the year 726. This influences promulgated some ideologies propelled at opposing various icons which were anti-Christ. Understanding the base of the iconoclastic concept fully, one needs to deeply identify the actual sources that lead to the outbreak of the iconoclastic outburst. Notably, though Emperor Leo III was not a theological initiator, his gestures of putting forth opposition icons formed the basis through which the iconoclastic controversies that steered iconoclasm. From a realism standpoint, iconoclasm stemmed from some anti-Christ streams involving icons and images of apostles, patriarchs, saints, Jesus and angles among others. Convergence of these individual disputes leads to the iconoclastic controversy whereby iconoclasts purported the images as idolatrous and prompted for their removal and destruction while iconodules, on the other hand, supported the use of the images and icons alleging them as valid. This formed the main basis of the iconoclastic argument.

Digging deeper into the controversy, the iconodules strongly argued and believed that Jesus was the fresh representation of God. Further, they argued that man was made and created in the image of God and for this reasons, the justification to use images of God, apostles, and prophets in churches was valid and was fully in accordance to the Christian context of worship. From this line of thought, the use of icons and images in churches showed no sign of idolatry and was purely aligned with their idea of worship. This brought about a huge argument on whether neither of the arguments showed any form of adherence to the foundations and principles of theology or was just seemingly arguments based on logics and opinion. The iconodules argument was purely a question of idolatry which had its basis on teachings of St. John of Damascus. For this reason, the iconodules felt that the argument hugely lacked any form of valid conviction and practicality from a theological standpoint.

A clear insight into the opposition by the iconoclasts forms the key bases upon which they mainly argued. First, it is critically paramount to note that the church had endured numerous persecutions and tribulations during Leos time, mostly under the influence of Islam and Judaism. One very notable instance can be trailed back to the tearing down of the icon of Christ at the imperial palace entrance. This move was highly fordable, and their theological argument purported that images of Christ and apostles were purely idolatrous and lacked any grounds of been iconic. This argument was mainly backed by two key arguments whereby they presumed that Christ is an ideal ineffable image of God and should not be describable by all means. In this respect, the divine form of Christ should not be used to depict God. Also, they further argued that defining Christ in human form failed in regarding his divine nature. It is by these two key ideologies that iconoclasts lacked the very basis of acknowledging the validity of images and icons.

At different points of time within the same era, notable emperors were evidently granting their support to the iconoclasts. They did so by particularly ordering for the removal of images and icons on particular holy sites. In retaliation, oppositions were arising significantly, and the destruction was getting enormous. Resultantly, at around 843, Empress Theodora who was in an acting capacity as an heir to the throne requested for the re-institution of the destroyed images and icons in the church, This lead to the triumph of the iconodules. It is from the triumph that icons happen to be common in some churches in the east. Notably, the iconoclastic argument prompted a couple of splits between churches in the eastern side and those in the western. Owing to this, the theological significance of the iconoclasts fails to hold in the long-run as very little in their argument depicts any concrete theological argument. This portrays their argument as way too technical to be persuasive in the long-run. Further, the argument that icons and images were a show of idolatry failed to honor the biblical representation of Christ, Virgin Mary, and the saints.

Patriarch Timothy treats the Quran about the Bible in his Apology

Patriarch Timothy pioneered investigations on the engagement between Muslim intellectuals and Christian theological concepts. He undertook studies to understand the early Muslim Relations with Christianity as the Christians became extremely populous within the expansive Muslim empire. The situation arose from the discovery of organized Christian population living within monastic foundations and metropolitan regions. The situation brought a battleground of religious exchanges, though did not erode the respect that Muslims had for the Christians. The early centuries between 700 through 1000 AD saw Christians enjoying easy mobility between Umayyad and Abbasid societies. The atmosphere left Christians previously under Byzantine rule faring better amongst Muslims.

Christians enjoyed protected-status as Dhimmis and serving as secretaries and physicians to both societies. The protection allowed them to reverse the imperial policy to their advantage as financiers and jewelers patronized by nobles and courtiers. They undertook important service of transmitting religious and philosophical texts within the House of Wisdom. It earned the Christians agreeable working conditions for their efforts acknowledged by Muslim intellectuals. The Islamic rule did not always favor Christians a...