If someone rejects the filioque phrase from the Creed, should we assume their lost state? If they go from accepting it to rejecting it, rather than merely remaining ignorant of the issues, does this show apostasy from Trinitarian teaching enough that we may label them as heretics?
Is rejecting the filioque reason for assuming the lostness of somebody?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
Before we go any further, we better define "heresy" and "heretics." Many a thread has been met with confusion and talking past each other because people were operating with slightly different definitions.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
"And the Son" ... Added to the Nicene Creed so that the Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The original canonical version of the Nicene creed did not include the filoque
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Having a perfect Trinitarian theology doesn't necessarily mean someone is saved, and not having it doesn't necessarily mean they're unsaved.
Those who deny the filioque are not Western Catholic Christians - Reformed Catholic, or general Protestant, or Roman Catholic.
Certain denials re the Trinity would mean that they weren't professing Christians in any accepted sense of the words at all.
But genuinely saved people can be very confused about these doctrinal intricacies. The Lord knows them that are His, although we cannot always recognise them.
Those who deny the filioque are not Western Catholic Christians - Reformed Catholic, or general Protestant, or Roman Catholic.
Certain denials re the Trinity would mean that they weren't professing Christians in any accepted sense of the words at all.
But genuinely saved people can be very confused about these doctrinal intricacies. The Lord knows them that are His, although we cannot always recognise them.
I think the nature of the rejection has to be considered more closely.
Someone might object to a symbol or the form of words, but affirm the substance. This is ignorance to be relieved, rather than heresy to be condemned. Someone might affirm the substance but think that only the original version of the Nicene creed has ecumenical authority; that again is not a fundamental error overthrowing the substance of the clause. Someone might not have considered the issue, and be willing to say on that basis of John 15 that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet hesitate to affirm "and from the Son" because of a desire to remain close to the text itself. That is excessively cautious, but is not the same as opposing the idea. Of course it could also be that someone denies the procession of the Spirit from the Son because of an unwillingness to acknowledge the true and complete deity of the Son, which is a very different problem from being concerned about the ecumenical status of the Nicene Creed. More information is required!
In other words, in order to make clear what sort of rejection it is, on what level it functions, I think two things would have to take place. One is that the person would be asked to state positively what is the relation between the Son and the Spirit. The second is that this view would be engaged with by means of Biblical, theological, and historical explanation. If the positively stated view were deficient, and if the deficiency were obstinately persisted in, at that point you would have the necessary material to seek a judgment of heresy from the church against said individual.
P.S. - Here is another good thread on the subject.
Someone might object to a symbol or the form of words, but affirm the substance. This is ignorance to be relieved, rather than heresy to be condemned. Someone might affirm the substance but think that only the original version of the Nicene creed has ecumenical authority; that again is not a fundamental error overthrowing the substance of the clause. Someone might not have considered the issue, and be willing to say on that basis of John 15 that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet hesitate to affirm "and from the Son" because of a desire to remain close to the text itself. That is excessively cautious, but is not the same as opposing the idea. Of course it could also be that someone denies the procession of the Spirit from the Son because of an unwillingness to acknowledge the true and complete deity of the Son, which is a very different problem from being concerned about the ecumenical status of the Nicene Creed. More information is required!
In other words, in order to make clear what sort of rejection it is, on what level it functions, I think two things would have to take place. One is that the person would be asked to state positively what is the relation between the Son and the Spirit. The second is that this view would be engaged with by means of Biblical, theological, and historical explanation. If the positively stated view were deficient, and if the deficiency were obstinately persisted in, at that point you would have the necessary material to seek a judgment of heresy from the church against said individual.
P.S. - Here is another good thread on the subject.
Last edited:
By heresy I mean damning error. Not merely a difference of opinions between Christians but a difference which differentiates Christians from non-believers.
There is a difference between exclusion by oversight and exclusion by rejection.
None of the Creeds are complete doctrinal statements and are incomplete. Therefore, the exclusion of the filioque originally does not mean that the early Church rejected the filioque, only that they chose to emphasize one Trinitarian aspect over another.
But many EO's reject the filioque in doctrine and go beyond merely saying that the Western churches were impolite to add a phrase without the consent of the whole Church.
Thus, for many, the rejection is on doctrinal rather than ecclesiastical grounds.
p.s. follow-up question: Would we consider this revised Athanasian Creed (with the filioque) to truly be an ecumenical creed? It was Western and not truly "ecumenical" due to excluding the eastern Churches.
Or, at the point in which the eastern churches denied the filioque do we insist that those who deny the folioque are not true churches. Thus, the inclusion of this phrase in the revised creed is thus "ecumenical" since all true churches affirm it?
Or, at the point in which the eastern churches denied the filioque do we insist that those who deny the folioque are not true churches. Thus, the inclusion of this phrase in the revised creed is thus "ecumenical" since all true churches affirm it?
One question I am wrestling through:
Is it better to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son or is it okay to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father "through" the Son?
The Smithy: Scotus on the Filioque
Also in the literatue I see references to "Photian theology" but I have no idea what this means?
Any light on this?
Finally, this quote from Tertullian sounds a lot like Gregory Nazianzus on the topic:
Is it better to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son or is it okay to speak of the Spirit proceeding from the Father "through" the Son?
The Smithy: Scotus on the Filioque
Also in the literatue I see references to "Photian theology" but I have no idea what this means?
Any light on this?
Finally, this quote from Tertullian sounds a lot like Gregory Nazianzus on the topic:
I don't see an automatic incompatibility between "and" and "through" - after all, someone who says "through" seems to have conceded the "and"; and someone who says "and" would appear to be asserting a fact without determining its manner.
Against that reading of the words in isolation, of course, is the fact that the Greeks often had "and" get stuck in their throats but could offer "through" as an alternative. They perceived "and" as undermining the unity of the divine nature. I don't personally see an objection to "through", but I would be delighted to receive further instruction on this point.
The reference to Photian theology is undoubtedly to Photius. You can read the encyclical where he speaks against double procession here:
Patriarch Photius of Constantinople
His concern is that if you make the Son a principle of procession, you have denied unity in favor of duality. Obviously some of his criticisms are less cogent (and less honest) than others. It seems unlikely that he would have accepted the "through" modification of the language.
To the idea that "and" replaces the Father as fons deitatis with a duad, I would once again quote some favorite words from Rijssen:
Against that reading of the words in isolation, of course, is the fact that the Greeks often had "and" get stuck in their throats but could offer "through" as an alternative. They perceived "and" as undermining the unity of the divine nature. I don't personally see an objection to "through", but I would be delighted to receive further instruction on this point.
The reference to Photian theology is undoubtedly to Photius. You can read the encyclical where he speaks against double procession here:
Patriarch Photius of Constantinople
His concern is that if you make the Son a principle of procession, you have denied unity in favor of duality. Obviously some of his criticisms are less cogent (and less honest) than others. It seems unlikely that he would have accepted the "through" modification of the language.
To the idea that "and" replaces the Father as fons deitatis with a duad, I would once again quote some favorite words from Rijssen:
Last edited:
Thanks, Mr. Winzer - I believe that earlier thread was linked to previously, and I read it again a day or two ago with enjoyment. Do you have any thoughts on "and" vs. "through"?
As a matter of historical theology, and given the case that the eastern fathers can be shown to support a double procession, I don't see any reason for making an issue out of it. Dogmatically, though, one must question the effect of the "communication" if it only proceeds "through" the Son and not also "from" the Son. The adjoining "and" in "filioque" would technically be negated, because it is an addition to the thought that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. On these grounds I would doubt the suitability of the term of "through" instead of "and."
Thanks Ruben and Rev. Winzer.
A second question; can we refer to this Creed as truly "ecumenical" if the West changed it without the consent of the whole Church? In the least, this seems bad form and impolite. At worst, it seems to be deny the unity of the Church (no wonder those in the East were upset).
A second question; can we refer to this Creed as truly "ecumenical" if the West changed it without the consent of the whole Church? In the least, this seems bad form and impolite. At worst, it seems to be deny the unity of the Church (no wonder those in the East were upset).
It has been a while since I ran through the history but I think I am recalling correctly that the original "papal" advice was to retain the wording of the creed without the filioque and leave it to the church to explain it in terms of the filioque. That advice was rejected, and so the wording of the creed itself eventually became an issue. But I think it is clear that the East, not the West, created the division, and made the creed a pretence. One wonders, if the original advice had have been followed, if the East ever would have rejected the filioque as a dogma, as it would not have had the same impact.
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
The following article is rather long but is very helpful on the distinction between "from" and "through" and the problems that arise when trying to translate these concepts between Greek and Latin:
http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2...ximus-the-confessors-writings-on-filioque.pdf
http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2...ximus-the-confessors-writings-on-filioque.pdf
YXU
Puritan Board Freshman
I happened to listen to a lecture by an Eastern Orthodox teacher Fr. Thomas Hopko on Jesus the Son of God, the change to the 381 Creed appears to be more a doctrinal change than a political one. In their Trinitarian theology per Hopko on that lecture, the One God is the Father of the Lord Jesus, but no the Holy Trinity. Here is a link if anyone is interested: Jesus - Son of God Part 2 - The Names of Jesus - Ancient Faith Radio
- Status
