Thread: Orthodoxy and the Trinity (filioque)

In Christian theology the filioque clause or filioque controversy (filioque meaning "and [from] the Son," referring to the Holy Spirit) is a heavily disputed part of the Nicene Creed, that forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. It is most often referred to as simply "filioque" or "the filioque."

Here is a summary statement of a parish that is a member of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit:

THE HOLY SPIRIT
is one of the Persons of the Trinity and is one in essence with the Father. Orthodox Christians repeatedly confess, "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. . ." He is called the "Promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4), given by Christ as a gift to the Church, to empower the Church for service to God (Acts 1:8), to place God's love in our hearts (Romans 5:5), and to impart spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7-13) and virtues (Galatians 5:22, 23) for Christian life and witness. Orthodox Christians believe the biblical promise that the Holy Spirit is given in chrismation (anointing) at baptism (Acts 2:38). We are to grow in our experience of the Holy Spirit for the rest of our lives.

How big of a deal is this, both theologically and pragmatically? Is the Orthodox view worth the "split" of the Church? Does it make them heretical on this matter?

What are your thoughts?



"But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."
John 15:26 ESV

[Edited on 8-9-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

It's not Biblical; but not quite damnable.

Originally posted by Puritanhead
It's not Biblical; but not quite damnable.

Why is it not Biblical?

Western theology starts with the unity of the substance, and moves towards modalism. Eastern theology starts with the threeness of the persons, and moves towards tritheism. The balancing point for both is the traditional language of begetting and procession. It preserves the distinctive properties in western thought and safeguards against modalism. It exhibits the eternal communication of the Godhead in eastern thought and protects against tritheism.

Because eastern orthodoxy denies the filioque, it effectively stunts the perichoresis which characterises the unity in the Godhead. The Son shares in the life of the Father, and the Spirit shares in the life of the Father; but the Son and the Spirit share each other's life only insofar as they share the life of the Father. This has been described as reciprocal interiority, and is nothing more than a perichoresis of action instead of being.

For the orthodox reformed, economy reflects ontology, especially in the doctrine of salvation. So there is much at stake if we let go of our western heritage and start redefining the doctrine. We receive the Spirit through the Son, and by the Spirit come to share in the fellowship of the Father and the Son. It is difficult to conceive how this could be apart from the filioque or positing some kind of equivocation of language.

Originally posted by armourbearer
Western theology starts with the unity of the substance, and moves towards modalism. Eastern theology starts with the threeness of the persons, and moves towards tritheism. The balancing point for both is the traditional language of begetting and procession. It preserves the distinctive properties in western thought and safeguards against modalism. It exhibits the eternal communication of the Godhead in eastern thought and protects against tritheism.

Because eastern orthodoxy denies the filioque, it effectively stunts the perichoresis which characterises the unity in the Godhead. The Son shares in the life of the Father, and the Spirit shares in the life of the Father; but the Son and the Spirit share each other's life only insofar as they share the life of the Father. This has been described as reciprocal interiority, and is nothing more than a perichoresis of action instead of being.

For the orthodox reformed, economy reflects ontology, especially in the doctrine of salvation. So there is much at stake if we let go of our western heritage and start redefining the doctrine. We receive the Spirit through the Son, and by the Spirit come to share in the fellowship of the Father and the Son. It is difficult to conceive how this could be apart from the filioque or positing some kind of equivocation of language.

Well said.

rsc

An additional difficulty of the EO position is its effect on inspiration and the doctrine of Scripture. John Owen implicitly hammered the necessity of the filioque to the doctrine of Scripture.

There is a very helpful summary of this is in Carl Trueman's book The Claims of Truth.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Puritanhead
It's not Biblical; but not quite damnable.

Why is it not Biblical?

Didn't you answer the question by citing John 15:26? I think the simple answer is the best one here. Matthew's answer is nice, but the paramount authority falls on the inspired Scripture, and the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This issue brings into question Orthodox hermeneutics, and their handling of Scripture, and attendant doctrines of interpretation. Though, the EO manage to stir clear of any affirmations of Arianism, Eutychianism, Modalism, or Monophysitism.

3. The Holy Spirit is fully divine. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who most clearly teaches the nature of the Holy Spirit. In the Gospel of John, Jesus compares the ministry of the coming Holy Spirit to his own ministry. "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him" (Jn. 14:16-17). This understanding of the Holy Spirit is supported by the fact that distinctly divine attributes are ascribed to him: everlastingness (Heb. 9:14), omnipresence (Ps. 139:7-10), omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10-11), omnipotence (Lk. 1:35) and others.

4. While each is fully divine, the three persons of the Godhead are related to each other in a way that implies some differences. Thus, it is usually said in Scripture that the Father (not the Spirit) sent the Son into the world (Mk. 9:37; Mt. 10:40; Gal. 4:4), but that both the Father and the Son send the Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). We don't know fully what such a description of relationships within the Trinity means. But usually it is said that the Son is subject to the Father, for the Father sent him, and that the Spirit is subject to both the Father and the Son, for he is sent into the world by both the Son and Father. However, we must remember that when we speak of subjection we do not mean inequality. Although related to each other in these ways, the members of the Godhead are nevertheless "the same in substance, equal in power and glory," as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says (Q. 6).

"”Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1978.) pp. 114-115.

Well, John 15:26 could easily be interpreted in another way. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is sent (temporally, not ontologically) by Christ. There are some other passages in the NT that deal with "Spirit" of "Christ" but they are also vague. I guess I'm looking for something a little more concrete, Scripturally, not necessarily theoretically or pseudo-philosophically (especially when that is based on Western philosophy, of course you'll have different results than Eastern philosophical presuppositions, this is rudimentary stuff here).

Frankly, I don't like thinking too much about the doctrine of the Trinity in one day, or I will lose my mind.


I have enough trouble grasping the tenets of equality-in-hierarchy, but I want to stir clear of any unorthodox view all the same.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
(John 1:1-5)

Christ is the eternal incarnate Word (logos)!

Gabe, give me a week - my books are all in boxes. I can find the relevant material for you then.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabe, give me a week - my books are all in boxes. I can find the relevant material for you then.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Well, John 15:26 could easily be interpreted in another way. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is sent (temporally, not ontologically) by Christ. There are some other passages in the NT that deal with "Spirit" of "Christ" but they are also vague. I guess I'm looking for something a little more concrete, Scripturally, not necessarily theoretically or pseudo-philosophically (especially when that is based on Western philosophy, of course you'll have different results than Eastern philosophical presuppositions, this is rudimentary stuff here).

To argue that John 15:26 is referring to a temporal sending, as distinct from an ontological procession, requires philosophical presupposition. It posits a disjunction between temporal economy and eternal ontology. Now I would aver that the acceptance of "three persons" against modalism already accepts the philosophical presupposition that economy reflects ontology. A denial of that presupposition leaves Trinitarians without any basis for rejecting modalism. All passages of Scripture which lead us to believe that there are three persons could then be reinterpreted to refer only to temporal economy.

Why would someone need a presupposition to posit a distinction between temporality and eternality?

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Gabe, give me a week - my books are all in boxes. I can find the relevant material for you then.

Maybe you could consult your new Joel Osteen book for answers.
:P

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Why would someone need a presupposition to posit a distinction between temporality and eternality?

You mean "disjunction," not "distinction," yes? The issue is not the relation of time and eternity per se, but the relation of God to time and eternity. Are His temporal actions revelatory of His eternal Being? If not, then we have no basis upon which to predicate anything concerning God's eternal being. He is wholly other to us. On the other hand, if we take revelation at face value, as a true though accommodated revelation of God Himself to us, then God's actions in time allow us to predicate concerning His eternal being.

Biblical hermeneutics cannot be divorced from a philosophy of revelation. In fact, the very idea of hermeneutics presupposes some theory of communication, even on a human to human level.

Was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the first century an event that occurred in time?

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the first century an event that occurred in time?

It certainly was. But the question we must answer is, What relation does the Son bear to the Holy Spirit in order to enable the Son to send the Spirit? We accept that the Son is begotten of the Father, and therefore have no difficulty with the Father sending the Son. Eternal relation lies behind the temporal action. Filioque advocates are only requiring consistency, when they maintain that the same consideration should be given to the procession of the Spirit.

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the first century an event that occurred in time?

It certainly was. But the question we must answer is, What relation does the Son bear to the Holy Spirit in order to enable the Son to send the Spirit? We accept that the Son is begotten of the Father, and therefore have no difficulty with the Father sending the Son. Eternal relation lies behind the temporal action. Filioque advocates are only requiring consistency, when they maintain that the same consideration should be given to the procession of the Spirit.

I would think the Eastern Church would say that the Son has the right to "send" the Holy Spirit "in time" because the Son is of the same essence as the Father, however, the procession of the Holy Spirit belongs to the subsistency of the Father alone.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I would think the Eastern Church would say that the Son has the right to "send" the Holy Spirit "in time" because the Son is of the same essence as the Father, however, the procession of the Holy Spirit belongs to the subsistency of the Father alone.

Everything said in the above quote presupposes that temporal economy reflects eternal ontology, except the statement about the Son sending the Spirit. Why the inconsistency? If the temporal action does not reflect eternal relation, there is no basis for saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or even that the Spirit is a distinct person.

If the Son and the Spirit are merely of the same essence as the Father, at most the Son could pray the Father to send the Spirit. But we are told that the Son in fact sends the Spirit. That reflect a "personal" relation between the Son and the Spirit.

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I would think the Eastern Church would say that the Son has the right to "send" the Holy Spirit "in time" because the Son is of the same essence as the Father, however, the procession of the Holy Spirit belongs to the subsistency of the Father alone.

Everything said in the above quote presupposes that temporal economy reflects eternal ontology, except the statement about the Son sending the Spirit. Why the inconsistency? If the temporal action does not reflect eternal relation, there is no basis for saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or even that the Spirit is a distinct person.

If the Son and the Spirit are merely of the same essence as the Father, at most the Son could pray the Father to send the Spirit. But we are told that the Son in fact sends the Spirit. That reflect a "personal" relation between the Son and the Spirit.

Jesus says that the Son will send the Spirit from the Father.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Jesus says that the Son will send the Spirit from the Father.

Thus the "que" in the Filioque.

Rev. Winzer,

I've been thinking about your comments in this thread, as well as the general line of pro-filoque reasoning that occurs based on the proceeding and sending statements in John's gospel.

I've always believed the filioque, and understand the Scriptural rationale, but its one of those positions that tradition (not saying its authoritative in any form) kind of "sheds light" on and lends weight to.

I'm not wanting to debate the filioque per se, but I do have a question about the John passages and your reasoning used therein. I've always found it to be a bit of an exegetical stretch to take those passages and turn them into a support for the filioque.

I don't see how we can adopt a very *strict*, binding "economic reflected the ontological" hermeneutic. Because, just on the surface of things, if this principle were to be adopted...

Wouldn't you have *more* evidence that the Spirit helps generate/sustain the Son, than vice versa? Keep in mind that I'm not arguing this, nor do I remotely believe it. I just think that's where a very hard Rahner's Rule will lead.

As in, the Gospel narratives focus on the Spirit's conception of the Son in Mary's womb, His empowering and anointing of the Son in His baptism, His sustenance of the Son in His ministry, and His participation in the resurrection of the Son, as well as the ascension, if the clouds are interpreted as the shekinah.

So if we adopt that hermeneutic without partiality, wouldn't you say that it would lead to a greater emphasis on the Son's dependence on the Spirit?

The only two things that I see as possible supports for the filioque are a: Jesus actually conferring the Holy Spirit by breathing on the disciples, and B: the numerous epistolary statements where the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ.

But... do you see my point about where that hermeneutical principle, if applied across the board, and not just where it suits us, could lead?

Originally posted by Mudandstars
The only two things that I see as possible supports for the filioque are a: Jesus actually conferring the Holy Spirit by breathing on the disciples, and B: the numerous epistolary statements where the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ.

Can you see, though, that if a person were so inclined, he could understand both evidences as merely proving an economical procession of the Spirit from the Son? Unless we hold by the rule that economy reflects ontology we have no basis for affirming anything concerning the Trinity, not even that there are three persons.

Concerning the Spirit's work in the generation of Christ, I think it also reflects Triune communion. It shows that while the eternal communication of the Godhead is from the Father to the Son, and from the Father and the Son to the Spirit, that this does not entail subordination, as it would in human relationships. The Holy Spirit is equal in power and glory with the Father and the Son, and acts in a manner that is appropriate to His person and relation.

Blessings!

So what are the practical implications to rejecting the filoque? How does it affect the guy in the pew?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for your interaction. In the short time you've been on here I've definitely learned to respect your insights and your knowledge of the Scriptures. So I'm certainly not trying to just argue with you for the sake of arguing. Just wanted to clarify that. But anyway:

Can you see, though, that if a person were so inclined, he could understand both evidences as merely proving an economical procession of the Spirit from the Son?

Yes, I can see; certainly more in the case of Christ's breathing the Spirit than the epistolary statements, though, since the former is narrative, while the latter are just descriptive statements in didactic portions of Scripture. But again, that isn't really establishing the point, is it? Its like: A: The filioque is true. B: If the "economy reflects ontology" principle is wrong, or at the last can't be woodenly applied, the filioque loses support. Ergo, Rahner's rule (just easier to type) is correct. It seems to be assuming the filioque from the get go, as a means to establishing the principle.

Unless we hold by the rule that economy reflects ontology we have no basis for affirming anything concerning the Trinity, not even that there are three persons.

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you using "economy" in the sense of, "any statement about God made to humankind"? I've always taken it to mean, roughly, "the actions of God that are outside of himself, in history" that revealed Scripture has recorded for us. Because in that sense, you wouldn't say that John 1:1 was "economical" was it? Its an indicative statement made about God, and about the Word, by John. And there are numerous such statements that don't rely on descriptive analyses of the roles of the Hypostases in history and in redemption. More than enough to shore up every Trinitarian and Christological formulation that we have in the Creeds and in the Confession.

Concerning the Spirit's work in the generation of Christ, I think it also reflects Triune communion. It shows that while the eternal communication of the Godhead is from the Father to the Son, and from the Father and the Son to the Spirit, that this does not entail subordination, as it would in human relationships. The Holy Spirit is equal in power and glory with the Father and the Son, and acts in a manner that is appropriate to His person and relation.

It just seems to me that the application of your rule is a bit disjointed.

For instance:

1: Economically, the Theanthropos sends the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Ergo, the Son ontologically participates in the procession of the Spirit.

2: Economically, the Spirit generates the Son in Mary's womb, descends on Him at His baptism at which point He guides Him, sustains Him, empowers Him, leads Him, etc, and then the Spirit participates in raising Him from the dead, and is the medium in which the Son ascends to Heaven.

Ergo, "it reflects Trinitarian communion".

Do you see how the application of that rule is a bit lopsided? I mean if we were just functioning in terms of that rule, and the economic actions we have recorded?

Like I said. I adhere to the filioque because its in the Westminster Confession, and all of the theologians I respect did, and do. But its more of a tentative subscription than a rock-solid one. Just in this sense: I don't see how anyone can honestly say that the Scriptural evidence for the filioque is on the same sure, unquestionable grounding as the Three Hypostases and the One Substance.

And the fact that, as far as I know, Augustine was pretty much the first one to eludicated the procession of the Spirit in that manner, when the Cappadocians and other commentators didn't, and that it was, for the most part, inserted into the creed without discussion or vote of the Eastern churches, just makes me question a little. I mean I want to believe it, and its one of those things I believe, in a sense, in the light of the tradition I adhere to, but I just don't see it as an "open and shut" case of Trinitarian relations.

Respectfully,

Joshua

Originally posted by Mudandstars
It seems to be assuming the filioque from the get go, as a means to establishing the principle.

Yes, I can see how it might be taken that way; but it seems to me the same can be said about any opposing view. We have finite understandings, so eventually all our reasonings will come full circle. But I have attempted to show how the economy/ontology rule is consistent with Trinitarian formulation as a whole.

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you using "economy" in the sense of, "any statement about God made to humankind"? I've always taken it to mean, roughly, "the actions of God that are outside of himself, in history" that revealed Scripture has recorded for us. Because in that sense, you wouldn't say that John 1:1 was "economical" was it? Its an indicative statement made about God, and about the Word, by John. And there are numerous such statements that don't rely on descriptive analyses of the roles of the Hypostases in history and in redemption. More than enough to shore up every Trinitarian and Christological formulation that we have in the Creeds and in the Confession.

Your definition of economy suffices for this discussion.

A difficulty arises over the fact that all revelation is historical. It is a fundamental commitment to Scripture as true which leads us to believe that God's actions in history reveal who and what He is in Himself. But whenever men feel the need to escape the absolutist realities of that commitment, they will have recourse to a gap, a wall, or a boundary, between God Himself and His revelation.

Now, if we acted consistently with our commitments, the filioque never would have been disputed. As you have already mentioned, the Holy Spirit is revealed to us as the Spirit of Christ, and Christ sends the Spirit. But men will try to escape the inevitable by postulating that this is the case only in the scheme of salvation, and hence only a reality within salvation history.

On the same basis, men have denied the three persons in the Trinity. Once we undermine the fundamental theological commitment that revelation tells us facts about God Himself, it would not matter how many statements there are in Scripture to the effect that there are three persons, seeing they could only be relied upon to predicate things concerning God in history, leaving us without any information of God in eternity.

Hence I exhort that we be true to our fundamental commitment, as Trinitarians, and acknowledge the rule that economy reflects ontology. Which, if we do so, we are bound to acknowledge the filioque.

1: Economically, the Theanthropos sends the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Ergo, the Son ontologically participates in the procession of the Spirit.
2: Economically, the Spirit generates the Son in Mary's womb, descends on Him at His baptism at which point He guides Him, sustains Him, empowers Him, leads Him, etc, and then the Spirit participates in raising Him from the dead, and is the medium in which the Son ascends to Heaven.
Ergo, "it reflects Trinitarian communion".

I didn't make 1 and 2 premises from which to draw a conclusion. Hence the syllogism is out of place. I simply sought to show how 2 also reflects ontology. The Holy Spirit's work in the generation of Christ, like His brooding over the waters at creation, was according to His particular personal relation in the Trinity.

Do you see how the application of that rule is a bit lopsided? I mean if we were just functioning in terms of that rule, and the economic actions we have recorded?

Anything can look lop-sided when we turn our head slightly on an angle to view it. When it comes to creation and redemption, we happily recognise the distinction and order in the Trinity. I only suggest that we be consistent.

Blessings!