The Filioque-Controversy with the laity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aco

Puritan Board Freshman
I‘m part of a Baptist church in a majority Eastern Orthodox country. One evening I gave a Bible Study and at the end there came up a question concerning the Filioque. Now, this question was asked by a fresh convert from EO (although nominal). It is the case that even nominal members of the EO-Church are aware of some doctrinal differences between the Western and Eastern tradition.
I answered from a Reformed standpoint and gave some biblical references. The first text which crosses my mind is always Romans 8,9 (You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. ESV).
I didn‘t delve deep enough into that issue yet. I read some EO-Theologians (like Sergey Bulgakov), because they seem to give most of the heed to the Filioque-Controversy nowadays, often followed with attacks on Augustine and Scholasticism or with silly arguments like "Augustine convinced me that the Filioque is wrong" (they do it also with Predestination and Election). The Western theologians seem to be more indifferent. The other difficulty is that it is much more a philosophical, creedal and ecclesiastical issue than really a biblical-exegetical one.
How important is it? Certainly for me its not a mark of biblical orthodoxy, but I also don‘t dismiss it as irrelevant.
 
The thing is, a lot depends on how the EO position is framed. The more conciliatory EO advocates will be content to say something like, "The Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son." This is far less objectionable, obviously, than more hardline statements that leave the Son out of the procession completely. So, there is actually a range of formulations even in EO, and it becomes important to distinguish just which statement of the position one is dealing with. I would venture to say that leaving the Son out of the procession completely out of some desire to protect the "fount of deity" aspect of the Father is heretical, since it attacks the oneness of God, and splits the Son off from the Spirit. The first way I mentioned above would not be heretical, but a lot would depend on how it is interpreted, as well. Is Jesus seen as merely a conduit through which the Spirit processes? Or is the procession from the Father given to the Son, so that the second Person of the Trinity can be said to send as well? Most from the West would be content with the latter way of understanding it, since we want to safeguard the active component of the Son's sending, while we don't have a problem with the fons deitatis of the Father. The Son is not merely passive, though.

Personally, I have never thought that the issue was unresolvable. The Great Schism happened just as much, if not more, due to political matters and ecclesiastical maneuvering as due to theological issues (intinction was another one of the issues: the East practiced it and the West did not). In other words, I do not think that the Schism would have happened at all if the issues were only the Filioque and intinction. I think the Filioque is resolvable. If the procession of the Spirit originates in the Father, we protect the fons deitatis. But we also have to say that the procession of the Spirit is fully given to the Son in eternity. Then we protect the full deity of the Son, and His connection to the Spirit. Surely this is how perichoresis should be understood!
 
The thing is, a lot depends on how the EO position is framed. The more conciliatory EO advocates will be content to say something like, "The Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son." This is far less objectionable, obviously, than more hardline statements that leave the Son out of the procession completely. So, there is actually a range of formulations even in EO, and it becomes important to distinguish just which statement of the position one is dealing with. I would venture to say that leaving the Son out of the procession completely out of some desire to protect the "fount of deity" aspect of the Father is heretical, since it attacks the oneness of God, and splits the Son off from the Spirit. The first way I mentioned above would not be heretical, but a lot would depend on how it is interpreted, as well. Is Jesus seen as merely a conduit through which the Spirit processes? Or is the procession from the Father given to the Son, so that the second Person of the Trinity can be said to send as well? Most from the West would be content with the latter way of understanding it, since we want to safeguard the active component of the Son's sending, while we don't have a problem with the fons deitatis of the Father. The Son is not merely passive, though.

Personally, I have never thought that the issue was unresolvable. The Great Schism happened just as much, if not more, due to political matters and ecclesiastical maneuvering as due to theological issues (intinction was another one of the issues: the East practiced it and the West did not). In other words, I do not think that the Schism would have happened at all if the issues were only the Filioque and intinction. I think the Filioque is resolvable. If the procession of the Spirit originates in the Father, we protect the fons deitatis. But we also have to say that the procession of the Spirit is fully given to the Son in eternity. Then we protect the full deity of the Son, and His connection to the Spirit. Surely this is how perichoresis should be understood!
The Trinity though is interdependent eternally upon each other, are they not? One God, who has eternally existed as 3 Persons within one Being, so the Holy Spirit would be proceeding from Father and the Son?
 
The thing is, a lot depends on how the EO position is framed. The more conciliatory EO advocates will be content to say something like, "The Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son." This is far less objectionable, obviously, than more hardline statements that leave the Son out of the procession completely. So, there is actually a range of formulations even in EO, and it becomes important to distinguish just which statement of the position one is dealing with. I would venture to say that leaving the Son out of the procession completely out of some desire to protect the "fount of deity" aspect of the Father is heretical, since it attacks the oneness of God, and splits the Son off from the Spirit. The first way I mentioned above would not be heretical, but a lot would depend on how it is interpreted, as well. Is Jesus seen as merely a conduit through which the Spirit processes? Or is the procession from the Father given to the Son, so that the second Person of the Trinity can be said to send as well? Most from the West would be content with the latter way of understanding it, since we want to safeguard the active component of the Son's sending, while we don't have a problem with the fons deitatis of the Father. The Son is not merely passive, though.

Personally, I have never thought that the issue was unresolvable. The Great Schism happened just as much, if not more, due to political matters and ecclesiastical maneuvering as due to theological issues (intinction was another one of the issues: the East practiced it and the West did not). In other words, I do not think that the Schism would have happened at all if the issues were only the Filioque and intinction. I think the Filioque is resolvable. If the procession of the Spirit originates in the Father, we protect the fons deitatis. But we also have to say that the procession of the Spirit is fully given to the Son in eternity. Then we protect the full deity of the Son, and His connection to the Spirit. Surely this is how perichoresis should be understood!

Yes, from my reading of EO Theology, with which I‘m acquainted, the majority holds to the "through the Son" (δια του υιου) phrase, drawn from the Cappadocians. But the anti-ecumenical sentiments which are not rare in EO Countries, especially those which are more hostile to RC for historical and political reasons tend to go to the full-blown denial of the Filioque.
But my concern is here with lay people who were just taught the EO position without any reflection or knowledge of the the issues, convert to evangelical churches and at sometime come up with this issue and ask questions concerning the Filioque. They have no knowledge concerning the fons deitatis or perichoresis. Now, when you bring up that there is a position on this issue that is heretical (denying the oneness of God), it seems to have a potential importance.
In EO the fons deitatis is emphasised in the sense that the Father is the originator of the Divinity (here the ουσια) as far as I know. This are remains of Origen‘s subordinationism which never disappeared in Eastern Christianity, that‘s one of the reasons why they deny the Athanasian Creed.

Now, you‘ve written that the procession originates with the Father. I always thought of it in the way, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son and from the Son back to the Father from eternity, which is also my understanding of the eternal inner-trinitarian relationship.
 
The Western theologians seem to be more indifferent.

I think this is one of the great failures of contemporary theologians, that they are indifferent on this matter. Richard of St. Victor has shown that the formulation "through the Son" is actually inadequate by itself. Procession must be directly from the Father and from [the Father through] the Son or you would have an exclusively mediated relation within the Godhead itself, which undermines perichoresis.
 
The Trinity though is interdependent eternally upon each other, are they not? One God, who has eternally existed as 3 Persons within one Being, so the Holy Spirit would be proceeding from Father and the Son?

Yes, the interdependency of the persons is just that: a full perichoretic interdependence of the persons, though care must be taken not to diminish the fact that each person is fully God. Surely you cannot interpret my words as implying otherwise?

Now, you‘ve written that the procession originates with the Father. I always thought of it in the way, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son and from the Son back to the Father from eternity, which is also my understanding of the eternal inner-trinitarian relationship.

Ruben's formulation is better, in my opinion. There is a dual procession. The Holy Spirit eternally processes from the Father, and from the Son, who is given that direct procession from the Father. The Holy Spirit is not a conduit from the Father to the Son.
 
Just be careful of bad defenses. I"ve seen some people say that the Filioque is necessary because it proves the deity of Christ, since production of a divine person is a mark of deity. The problem with that is that the Holy Spirit, who is fully divine, doesn't produce or generate or spirate a divine person.
 
Yes, the interdependency of the persons is just that: a full perichoretic interdependence of the persons, though care must be taken not to diminish the fact that each person is fully God. Surely you cannot interpret my words as implying otherwise?



Ruben's formulation is better, in my opinion. There is a dual procession. The Holy Spirit eternally processes from the Father, and from the Son, who is given that direct procession from the Father. The Holy Spirit is not a conduit from the Father to the Son.
The conduit aspect was something like what CS Lewis stated in Mere Christianity, in that eternal love between the Father and Son was so intense and real that He was the Third person, the Holy Spirit. I do not like that explanation of his.
 
The conduit aspect was something like what CS Lewis stated in Mere Christianity, in that eternal love between the Father and Son was so intense and real that He was the Third person, the Holy Spirit. I do not like that explanation of his.

Lewis was paraphrasing Augustine, who said the Spirit was the bond of love (vincula amor, or something like that). I agree, it's a bad idea.
 
As RobertGodfrey says: not to be overlooked is the political nature of unilaterally making a (slight? helpful?) change to an ecumenical statement. That the eastern churches were offended is completely understandable.

It was something like one of the States of America acting in legislative assembly, and changing the wording of the Constitution, saying "this is how it ought to read." There's an unfortunate "power play" dynamic that is part of the history, not just the theological questions. Not to say those theological questions are insignificant--I think they are quite important, and agree with Lane and Ruben above.

And I also think that for Protestant, "western" churches, the fillioque is now ours as an inheritance, and we cannot and should not repudiate it for the sake of unity, or not creating offense. The offense to the east is there, and must be acknowledged, though we mean to limit its power to overly-influence discussion. Yet, our first conversation partner continues to be Rome, and we have this article in common with them.

The reality is there are many more serious issues that stand in the way of unity east and west. If the western church as a whole--Roman, Protestant, and any other creedal division--gave up the filioque tomorrow, there would not be unity. The western church is fractured; and even if it was whole again (on Protestant principles), the eastern church has resisted institutional reformation according to the Word.

Godfrey's point seems to be: that having an explanation for and defense of the filioque is fine; but at the level of first-importance, we could just abandon that form of words and surrender the whole (political) point of creedal expression to the EO--because the heart of the matter is the gospel, and the gospel does not stand on human authority but Scripture authority.
 
Ditto on the political aspect. Thomas Aquinas makes this clear somewhere (I can dig it up later).

The pope was seen as the vicar of Christ. So he is basically Christ. The Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ. Therefore, the transmission of grace proceeds from the Pope.
 
Ditto on the political aspect. Thomas Aquinas makes this clear somewhere (I can dig it up later).

The pope was seen as the vicar of Christ. So he is basically Christ. The Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ. Therefore, the transmission of grace proceeds from the Pope.

Is their argument for the Filioque basically based on the papacy?
 
Is their argument for the Filioque basically based on the papacy?

Depends on when in church history. In Toledo in the 7th century the Filioque was used to counter an Arian argument by proving the Son was God because he could produce a divine Person. That's a terrible argument, by the way, but it is independent of the Papacy. By the time you get to Thomas Aquinas the connection between the Papacy and the Filioque is established.
 
Agree that it is political. The filioque controversy highlighted the nature of the papacy. Can the pope unilaterally rewrite/add to a creed given to us by an ecumenical council? The west says yes, the east says no. The west says he is the supreme authority over other bishops, the east says he is (was) primus inter pares.
 
In Toledo in the 7th century the Filioque was used to counter an Arian argument by proving the Son was God because he could produce a divine Person. That's a terrible argument, by the way, but it is independent of the Papacy.

That depends on the way the argument is phrased. If it's a response to a denial of the Son's divinity, the fact of His participation in producing another divine Person is quite relevant. Because it's true that only a divine Person could spirate another divine Person. Of course it's also true that only a divine Person could proceed from another.
 
That depends on the way the argument is phrased. If it's a response to a denial of the Son's divinity, the fact of His participation in producing another divine Person is quite relevant. Because it's true that only a divine Person could spirate another divine Person. Of course it's also true that only a divine Person could proceed from another.

Sure, but if the claim is that the property of producing a divine person is necessary to divinity, then that rules the Holy Spirit out.

Of course it's also true that only a divine Person could proceed from another.

In a Neo-Platonic scheme that isn't true. In fact, anything that spirated out would be of lesser divinity or essence. I think Neo-Platonism is horribly wrong, so that doesn't particularly bug me, but any Neo-Platonic critic in the ancient world, like Porphyry, would have had a ready response.

Gnosticism specifically said that divine persons, albeit of lesser divinity, were spirating left and right.
 
Sure, but if the claim is that the property of producing a divine person is necessary to divinity, then that rules the Holy Spirit out.

Right, that's why I didn't make that claim.

The failure to distinguish between generation/spiration and creation is going to create problems in any intellectual milieu.
 
Sure, but if the claim is that the property of producing a divine person is necessary to divinity, then that rules the Holy Spirit out.



In a Neo-Platonic scheme that isn't true. In fact, anything that spirated out would be of lesser divinity or essence. I think Neo-Platonism is horribly wrong, so that doesn't particularly bug me, but any Neo-Platonic critic in the ancient world, like Porphyry, would have had a ready response.

Gnosticism specifically said that divine persons, albeit of lesser divinity, were spirating left and right.
Some have a hard time seeing how Jesus can be eternally Begotten by the Father, and still not be a created being, was there ever that concern regarding the Holy Spirit?
 
Some have a hard time seeing how Jesus can be eternally Begotten by the Father, and still not be a created being, was there ever that concern regarding the Holy Spirit?

Jesus' sharing the same essence, and that the begetting is spiritual not physical, and that this didn't take place in time, is why He isn't a creature.

As to the Holy Spirit, yes, there was a tendency in the early church to view him as less than fully God. Gregory of Nazianzus broke the back of that thinking.
 
Jesus' sharing the same essence, and that the begetting is spiritual not physical, and that this didn't take place in time, is why He isn't a creature.

As to the Holy Spirit, yes, there was a tendency in the early church to view him as less than fully God. Gregory of Nazianzus broke the back of that thinking.
The big disputes seemed to revolve around Jesus as a created being or not. Was there ever a formal Council decision regarding the Spirit Himself?
 
The big disputes seemed to revolve around Jesus as a created being or not. Was there ever a formal Council decision regarding the Spirit Himself?
At a synod in Alexandria in 362 Athanasius made his contribution to doctrinal unity by distinguishing hypostasis and ousia. The synod also affirmed, over against the Pneumatomachians, that the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the ousia of the Father and the Son.

The addition of the filioque clause (affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son) to the Nicene Creed was adopted at Toledo, Spain in 589.
 
The big disputes seemed to revolve around Jesus as a created being or not. Was there ever a formal Council decision regarding the Spirit Himself?

The ancients were very hesitant to go that route. Yes, they gave the Spirit worship, which necessarily implied his co-essence with the Father and the Son.

At the same time, though, they were quite nervous to come out and say, "The Spirit is God." There were several reasons for this. They held to the monarchia of the Father, and so to say the Spirit is God required a bit of extra thinking. Secondly, propositions about God usually got the Empire and the army involved and could affect entire continents. Therefore, you had to be very careful when you say stuff like that.

It is to Gregory of Nazianzus's credit that he made all the connections and wasn't scared to face the consequences.
 
Was there ever a formal Council decision regarding the Spirit Himself?

In addition to what's been said by Patrick and Jacob, and more importantly (since it was the Second Ecumenical Council), the First Council of Constantinople (381) was quite clear on the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son in not only the Creed, but also in the bishops' letter and canons 1, 5, and 7 (directly or by implication).

And, to tag along with Patrick, there is the Athanasian Creed, as well as (per Jacob) the incomparable contribution of the Cappadocians (think Basil on the Holy Spirit), though Jacob rightly points out that Nazianzus is the most direct and fearless (Basil affirms consubstantiality and opposes the Pneumatomachians but never explicitly says in writing that the Holy Spirit is God).

Peace,
Alan
 
If you can find it on the cheap, get John McGuckin's biography of Gregory of Nazianzus. It documents how Gregory wanted a stronger confession on the Holy Spirit but the bishops said no. Gregory gave a veiled threat that he would leave if they didn't. They called his bluff and he stepped down.
 
The ancients were very hesitant to go that route. Yes, they gave the Spirit worship, which necessarily implied his co-essence with the Father and the Son.

At the same time, though, they were quite nervous to come out and say, "The Spirit is God." There were several reasons for this. They held to the monarchia of the Father, and so to say the Spirit is God required a bit of extra thinking. Secondly, propositions about God usually got the Empire and the army involved and could affect entire continents. Therefore, you had to be very careful when you say stuff like that.

It is to Gregory of Nazianzus's credit that he made all the connections and wasn't scared to face the consequences.
Would the Early Church Fathers tied int the Spirit being God due to the OT/NT uses for Him, or was it due to the influence of the Apostles of Jesus themselves?
 
If you can find it on the cheap, get John McGuckin's biography of Gregory of Nazianzus. It documents how Gregory wanted a stronger confession on the Holy Spirit but the bishops said no. Gregory gave a veiled threat that he would leave if they didn't. They called his bluff and he stepped down.
The scriptures in the NT were pretty specific in addressing the Holy spirit as being God, so why would they be balking at confessing this truth revealed to us by God?
 
In addition to what's been said by Patrick and Jacob, and more importantly (since it was the Second Ecumenical Council), the First Council of Constantinople (381) was quite clear on the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son in not only the Creed, but also in the bishops' letter and canons 1, 5, and 7 (directly or by implication).

And, to tag along with Patrick, there is the Athanasian Creed, as well as (per Jacob) the incomparable contribution of the Cappadocians (think Basil on the Holy Spirit), though Jacob rightly points out that Nazianzus is the most direct and fearless (Basil affirms consubstantiality and opposes the Pneumatomachians but never explicitly says in writing that the Holy Spirit is God).

Peace,
Alan
When was the Spirit universally confessed and recognized by the Church at large as being Himself God?
 
@Dachaser

The Athanasian Creed says explicitly "the Holy Spirit is God." It was most likely produced in the fifth or sixth century (and not by Athanasius).

However, it is received in the Latin West and not the Greek East. The Nicene Creed and the First Council of Constantinople affirm it, though not as directly as the Athanasius.

First Constantinople gets reaffirmed in the remaining Seven Ecumenical Councils (the East and West separate in 1054, between Constantinople IV, which the East doesn't recognize, and Lateran I). But there are no further shared ecumenical creeds after the late fourth century. What you have in the Niceno-Constantinapolitan Creed is it for a shared East/West expression (before the filioque clause).

As far as I am aware, the Orthodox content themselves with the expressions and affirmations of Constantinople (381) and affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the main body does. I only put it this way because the Orthodox do not have the sort of unified doctrinal expression that the church in the West did during those years.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top