Bear with me... Filioque: A Lutheran Perspective

[AMM]

I'm trying to wrap my mind about the filioque and whether or not it should be accepted (I'm interested in Orthodoxy for other reasons, but I think this would be enough to push me over the edge, so to speak). I know the basics of the argument for and against, and I'm aware of the claim of semi-sabellianism against the filioque. I posted in a Lutheran facebook group to get some opinions that weren't from RCC sites.

Here's the discussion. It's rather long, so bear with me. I summarized where I could. I know this has been debated numerous times anyway, but I wanted to get responses on these specific arguments and this seemed the best way to do that. Mods, feel free to relocate this if necessary.

Spoiler

How should we respond to the EO claim that the filioque is semi-sabellianism/modalism? I.e., if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single source (which is official RCC dogma; not sure what our "official" position is), then that makes them, well, one source. Whereas we confess that the Father is not the Son, although they are of the same essence.

Without knowing a lot of the discussion going into the EO argument, my first response would be, "have you read the rest of the creed?" The Athanasian Creed lays it out pretty well. I supposed I'd go ahead and point out that the Father did indeed send the Son, and the Son sent the Holy Spirit. To quarrel further on the meaning of the word "proceed" in a sentence being treated apart from the rest of the creeds betrays an a priori assumption the Creeds are in error.

Except the original Nicene-Constantinople Creed didn't contain the filioque, so isn't the burden of proof on us? Aren't we of the West the ones that have the a priori assumption that the Creed needed to be fixed with the filioque?
Trying to understand this both historically, linguistically, and theologically. Historically, it seems as though the West is certainly in error, even if it is a theological truth. They modified the Creed without an ecumenical council, which was forbidden by the previous ecumenical councils. And I know, we can argue that we're Lutheran so the councils aren't binding on matters of doctrine or practice... but that's a dangerous precedent, in my opinion.

I don't know the historical argument for adding the filioque to the Nicene creed. I can look at the statement and find no error in it, though, certainly not an error of modalism particularly since I also have the Athanasian Creed and clear Scripture against modalism and a firm confession of the Holy Trinity in every creed. It's one thing to make an historical argument of "you had no right to add to or take away from the creed", it's another to claim, "that's modalism, Patrick"

That was one conversation. Here's the next, more in-depth one.

Spoiler

I think it's odd to say that "two separate persons sending a third" is modalism.

That's what I thought at first, too, but then I asked an EO friend to explain it to me. He said that it is not "sending" that is the issue. Clearly, the Son *sends* the Spirit. Rather, it is "where does the Spirit originate?" (Which is not to imply that the Spirit is non-eternal.)

The 15th c. Council of Florence (and RCC catechism) say, "He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration"

The EO argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that it makes the Father and the Son *one principle* (hence: semi-modalism). Whereas they are two existences/persons of God, not one.

Yeah....I'm going to go ahead and say they [the EO] are misreading the word "proceeds". Granted, I do not know my Latin very well, but I do not remember having ever been taught anywhere that "proceeds" means anything more than "sent by."

It sounds more like they are making a strawman by using the ambiguity of the meaning of a word without looking at how that word is limited by its context to show that the West is wrong. Again, nowhere have I ever heard anyone in a confessional, creedal tradition of Western Christianity that make the argument that the filioque makes the Father and Son one person. You can't really argue against someone's argument by redefining the words in their argument to mean something other than that they were actually saying. Doing so doesn't prove you're right and they are wrong. It just means you're good at wordsmithing.

So you're saying that if we understand "proceeds" as "sent by" then the filioque is fine? In Greek the term used is "ἐκπορευόμενον" which means "to issue forth as from an origin" if my sources are correct. So if we understand "proceed" as a translation of this (i.e., Rome) then would you say that is incorrect? Whereas if we understand just as a natural, normal use of the word "proceed" (e.g., sent by) then it's fine?

However, this morning I 'issued forth as from an origin' from my wife and my kids at home, but this does not mean that my wife and kids are one person.

What actually confuses me concerning this whole line of thinking, is that if EO argues that "and the Son" means that we are saying that the Father and Son are one and the same origin, then what does that mean for the Spirit that proceeds from them. To me it sounds like making the argument that the filioque implies that the Father and the Son are the same source, then would that necessitate that they believe that the Holy Spirit literally "comes out" of this one origin? To argue that the filioque implies that the Father and Son are one and the "origin" in matter of substance would mean that when they say the Spirit has origin in the Father only, (especially if they don't take issue with the "sent" part of it), then they are saying that the Spirit's "beginning" is in the Father only...meaning that the Spirit has a beginning and therefore is not its own eternal, separate person.

Does any of what I just said make sense? I don't really know how to clearly communicate what I am thinking.

In other words, to argue that "and the Son" means that the Father and the Son are one and the same origin (as in the same person), wouldn't that necessitate that this argument implies that the Spirit is created in the Father, or is one and the same as the Father? I don't see how this argument would make any sense against the filioque unless this is the relationship between the Father and the Spirit as well.

Otherwise, you see two separate and distinct persons "sending" a third separate and distinct person, and, as you said, EO doesn't have a problem saying that.

I don't think you originated from your wife and kids, as I understand the meaning. An analogy I've heard is if the President writes a letter to someone, he will use his secretary to stamp it, address it, mail it, etc. But the letter doesn't originate with the secretary, since the secretary didn't write it.

I do think that is part of their criticism -- the filioque relegates the Spirit to a lesser position by elevating both the Father and the Son. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's introducing the concept of time to the relations of the Trinity. We would say that the Son has his origin in the Father -- the Word is "begotten of his Father" but we clarify that it is "before all worlds" or outside of time. I think they'd reason the same with the procession of the Spirit. The Spirit proceeds from the Father *in eternity* but is sent by the Son *in time*.

Here is one thing I found on an OO website that I believe clarifies their position.

"So what is wrong with accepting Filoque;

1. It is contrary to Scripture – John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit’s procession in terms of the Father

2. The idea of “filoque”, makes the Holy Spirit lower than the “Father” and the “Son”. This is extremely wrong because all the members of the Triune God, are equal. No member is greater or less than the other. The Father is God, The Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son, it makes it a lesser member, which in turn makes it not equal to God.

3. In saying that the “Son” can be shared by two persons, that it proceeds from both the “Father and the “Son” is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed in the trinity. This again is heretical and goes against what scripture teaches.

4. Apostolic Tradition has always taught that God the Father is the single Source (“monarchy”) of the Son and the Spirit. Moreover it has always been biblical that the Trinity exsited before all ages and was never begotten. There is no chronological order of existence among the Three Persons, i.e. no one of the Persons existed before the other, because They are eternal. Therefore the Names of the Three Persons can be mentioned in any order, because the Holy Trinity is above any order. For example, the order in the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is different than that in the Apostolic blessing in 2Corinthians 13:14, i.e. the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

5. St Cyril of Alexandria rightly points out that The Holy Spirit is not estranged from the Son since They have the same essence). Each of the Three Persons is in the other Two.

It is clearly evident that this idea of “Filoque” has many flaws, too many to mention here, this was just a simple overview of the issue."

https://bishoysblog.com/2010/05/25/filoque/

But when the Father sent His Son, it was in time. And when the Father and the Son Sent the Spirit, it was in time.

That analogy is also presents what I am getting at: letter is a creation of the President. Therefore, what does this argument say about the relationship between the Father and the Spirit? To have this definition of "origin" and "originate" would mean that the Spirit is a created being and not part of the eternal Trinity.

I could be wrong, but that seems like a hardcore mixing of the "Imminent Trinity" and the "Economic Trinity." How God subsists in Himself in eternity is not equal to how God reveals Himself in time to work for our salvation, which is what the Creed is speaking of. If I am wrapping my head around this right, they are making an Imminent argument against the Economic, which is what causes the confusion.

"Each of the Three Persons is in the other Two" sounds much closer to modalism or some other kind of heresy than saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I also don't understand how they can make the argument that you cannot exalt the Son so that both the Father and Son are above the Spirit, yet they make the argument that the Father is above both the Son and the Spirit...unless you are confusing the Immanent and Economic aspects of the Trinity. This also plays right in to what I said originally. With what you just posted, the Filioque was, or at least can be used, to combat Subordinationism, which would go up against their whole "monarchy" deal...unless you are keeping the Immanent and Economic separate and distinct: how the eternal Trinity operates within Himself vs. how the Trinity has revealed Himself to work in time for our salvation. If you blend the two, then I would imagine that you would come up with an argument that sounds very similar to the arguments that you shared from that site.

Also going WAY back in this line, you also captured my point on the ambiguity of the word "origin." However, unlike this argument against the filioque, you were not saying that I was wrong in what I said, because you understood what I meant when it was limited to the context. Instead you said, "That's not the definition that they are using." Right. They are using a different definition of the word to change the meaning of the filioque, but by doing so they are betraying their own thinking that...I'm not even sure. I don't think they would actually argue that the Spirit is a created being, but that's the only way that I can see their argument against the filioque.

In addition to that, their statement, "Each of the Three Persons is in the other Two," it seems like they would NOT have a problem saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, if the Father and the Son are in each other.

Point 3: "Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed in the trinity." There. In one sentence this shows that the person making this argument cannot let the paradox of the Imminent and Economic Trinity stand. They feel the need to reconcile the two, and therefore the filioque must be dealt with.

This argument also just asserts that the "filioque" automatically implies things without giving any evidence or support, and then immediately turns around to rebuke it. Some of the things that they claim the "filioque" teaches, again, I have never heard come out of the mouth of a confessional, creedal Western Christian. In order to argue against someone, you have to argue against what they say, not redefine their argument and import new meaning into it to show that new meaning is wrong. If you do so, you have actually not engaged their argument at all. I think it all boils down to, not the filioque itself, but what they mean by "proceeds."

Looking at that once more, the Greek word, ἐκπορευόμενον in BDAG says,

"ἐκπορεύομαι (s. πορεύομαι) impf. ἐξεπορευόμην; fut. ἐκπορεύσομαι; pf. ἐκπεπόρευμαι LXX (mid. since X.; ins, pap, LXX, En; GrBar 6:1; Just., D. 31, 2 ποταμὸς εἷλκεν ἐκπορευόμενος [Da 7:10 LXX and Theod.])

① to be in motion from one area to another, go

ⓐ abs. (UPZ 5, 11; 78, 44; BGU 1078, 4 [39 A.D.] al.) go away Ac 3:11 D. ὄχλοι ἐκπορευόμενοι crowds or people that came out Lk 3:7; go out Ac 25:4. εἰσπορεύεσθαι καὶ ἐ. go in and out 9:28 (cp. Dt 31:2; Tob 5:18; 1 Macc 3:45). Esp. of hostile spirits come out Mt 17:21; Ac 19:12.

ⓑ w. indication of the place fr. which: ἔκ τινος (Polyb. 6, 58, 4; Mi 1:3; Ezk 47:12 al.) out of the sanctuary Mk 13:1. ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου B 2:7 (cp. Dt 25:17). Of a bride come out of the bridal chamber Hv 4, 2, 1. ἔξω τῆς πόλεως outside the city Mk 11:19. ἀπό τινος (Jer 5:6; Sir 42:13) from Jericho Mt 20:29; Mk 10:46. ἐκεῖθεν 6:11 (cp. 2 Km 16:5). Cp. παρά τινος proceed from someone (Ezk 33:30) of the Spirit ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται J 15:26.

ⓒ w. the goal indicated: εἴς τι (X., An. 5, 6, 33; Jer 6:25; Ezk 44:19) εἰς ὁδόν set out on a journey Mk 10:17. εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα 7:19 (s. ἀφεδρών). ἐ. εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς come out (of the graves) to a resurrection that brings life (opp. κρίσεως) J 5:29. ἐπί τινα to someone (cp. Zech 6:6, 8) Rv 16:14. πρός τινα to someone (Judg 9:33; Is 36:16) Mt 3:5; Mk 1:5.

② to come forth from, come/go out, proceed, in imagery, of things, words, or thoughts τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος what comes out of the mouth (cp. Pr 3:16a) Mt 15:11, cp. vs. 18; Lk 4:22; Eph 4:29. For this τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενα what comes out of a pers. Mk 7:15, cp. vs. 20. ἔσωθεν ἐκ τ. καρδίας vs. 21, cp. vs. 23. ῥῆμα ἐκπορευόμενον διὰ στόματος θεοῦ (διά A1a) Mt 4:4 (Dt 8:3). Of truth ἐ. ἐκ τοῦ στόματος Hm 3:1. Of fire, lightning, etc. (Job 41:12): lightning (Ezk 1:13) Rv 4:5; fire 9:17f; 11:5; fiery locusts Hv 4, 1, 6. Of streams of water flow out (Ezk 47:1, 8, 12) ἐκ τ. θρόνου τ. θεοῦ Rv 22:1 (ὑποκάτω τοῦ θρόνου ἐξεπορεύοντο ποταμοὶ πυρὸς En 14:19). Of a sword project ἐκ τ. στόματος 1:16; 19:15; ἐ. ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς πάντα τόπον reports about him spread into every place Lk 4:37.—M-M. TW."

I do not see in here anywhere that would necessitate the second meaning of the word...which, by the way, all are speaking of things created by another. However, in the English we would use the word "proceed" for all these meanings. "I proceeded from this place to that place." So in the Greek, the word used can simply mean, "moved from one location to another" or "sent." I think that would then put the burden of proof in their court to argue against what we actually mean when we say the filioque instead of using another definition of the word (which, by using that definition, creates problems for their own argument).

Anyway I've got to get to working and I am sure my word vomit has overloaded, so for the sake of both of us I will stop now!

To summarize:
1. What if we agree that the procession from the Son is not an origin (i.e. in eternity) of the Spirit, but simply him sending forth the Spirit in time? Is that orthodox?
2. What if we insist that it's not semi-sabellianism? Maybe Sabellianism could be inferred from the filioque; does that mean that the filioque necessitates sabellianism? Can't we accept a divine mystery that the Spirit proceeds from both but yet this is not modalism?
3. [Perhaps this is better for a RCC site] Why do we reject the dual procession? I.e., Roman dogma insists on the procession from both "as from a single source" - why can't the Spirit eternally proceed from both as two sources?
4. What makes us say that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father? The "ekporeuometai" (spelling?) in John 15:26 is not a perfect tense verb, so where do we get the idea of eternal? Is it simply the logical conclusion from (A) the spirit proceeds from the father and (B) the spirit is eternal so (C) the spirit eternally proceeds from the father? If so can't we replace the Major premise with (A) the spirit is sent by the father? and arrive at (C) the spirit is eternally sent from the father?
5. Isn't the EO view subordinationism for the Son [and the Spirit]?


Sorry, lots of rambling. This is a really long post, I know.

 

[AMM]

Additionally, on the argument about the Scriptures calling the Spirit "of Christ" -- I responded that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ because the Father gives him the Spirit, not because he (the Christ) is the source of the Spirit. To which I was told:

Which is borderline adoptionism, inasmuch as the Son would not have the fullness of the Godhead of His nature, but receives it only from the Father.

Thoughts about the claim/accusation of adoptionism?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm sure you can get much more educated responses than I can give you. But this is one I struggled to understand, since it was of such import to the Church, historically.

What bothers me is that if we consider the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as being from the Son, as a Source, that creates a wrong hierarchy within the Godhead. Either the Father and Son are equal, and the Holy Spirit is subjugated, or else the Father is primary, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit. I think this is why we often see the following illustration. Even if not stated, there is a kind of background impression in many Christians' minds that the Holy Spirit is somehow "lesser".

By contrast, we (Orthodox) teach that the Father is the ultimate Source, from which both the Son and the Holy Spirit are begotten/process. This is often illustrated by a triangle with the Father at the top. And is an action from eternity, thus neither Son nor Holy Spirit are created.

It seems to me that conflating the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son, with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is just rather sloppy thinking, and doesn't follow the pattern in the Creed used for the Father and the Son.

Those are my own biggest issues, along with the fact that most certainly no one had authority to decide to change the Creed, and hierarchs from Rome before that point had made it quite clear, so it wasn't a position even of Rome from early on.

 

[AMM]

I'm sure you can get much more educated responses than I can give you. But this is one I struggled to understand, since it was of such import to the Church, historically.

Thank you.

What bothers me is that if we consider the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as being from the Son, as a Source, that creates a wrong hierarchy within the Godhead. Either the Father and Son are equal, and the Holy Spirit is subjugated, or else the Father is primary, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit. I think this is why we often see the following illustration. Even if not stated, there is a kind of background impression in many Christians' minds that the Holy Spirit is somehow "lesser".

View attachment 198569

So in essence, are you acknowledging that there is a form of subordinationism in Orthodoxy? (The Father being primary, followed by the Son, who himself is followed by the Spirit?) But you say that this is preferable to the Western subordinationism of elevating the Father and the Son at the expense of the Spirit? Am I understanding correctly?

If so, doesn't your view still imply that the Holy Spirit is in some sense "lesser" than the Son, who is "lesser" than the Father? So it preserves the Divine Monarchy/Fountainhead/Source as the Father alone, rather than the Father and the Word?

By contrast, we (Orthodox) teach that the Father is the ultimate Source, from which both the Son and the Holy Spirit are begotten/process. This is often illustrated by a triangle with the Father at the top. And is an action from eternity, thus neither Son nor Holy Spirit are created.

View attachment 198568

Ahhh. I'd seen that shared before by an EO saying that it was superior to the previous one you showed because it didn't imply the Filioque. I didn't know why, but now I understand the difference in the two images.

So then -- is the Son begotten in any way "first" or "prior to" the Spirit's procession? Or do both of these events occur simultaneously? (I realize we're talking in eternity here, outside of time, which makes the "before" wording seem incorrect, but hopefully you know what I'm saying without me being an Arian. There was never a time when the Son (and Holy Spirit) was not, to clarify.)

It seems to me that conflating the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son, with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is just rather sloppy thinking, and doesn't follow the pattern in the Creed used for the Father and the Son.

Yeah, I've tried to point that out. We follow the Eternal Word of God, so you would think that we would want to take the differences in words a little more seriously, but it seems as though people just want to proof-text for the filioque and claim that "send" and "proceed" are the same. Even in English those two words don't mean the same thing! (My Greek is not good enough to know if they could both be translated as "proceed".)

Those are my own biggest issues, along with the fact that most certainly no one had authority to decide to change the Creed, and hierarchs from Rome before that point had made it quite clear, so it wasn't a position even of Rome from early on.

Certainly! That's another thing that bothers me as a Lutheran. It's a spot where we knelt to the papacy's claims of infallibility without realizing it (presumably), when the pope (or any bishop, of course) had no right to change anything.

 

[AMM]

Oh wait, I meant to ask this too. On the topic of subordinationism, one Lutheran (Dr. John Kleinig) has said the following, and I wanted to know what your view of this would be.

Well then, is the exalted Christ in any way subordinate to the Father right now? The answer is both "yes" and "no". It all depends on whether we are speaking about Him in His nature as God, or about Him in his office as the exalted Son of God. On the one hand, He is not subordinate to the Father in His divine essence, status, and majesty. On the other hand, He is, I hold, subordinate to the Father in His vice-regal office and His work as prophet, priest, and king. He is operationally subordinate to the Father. In the present operation of the triune God in the church and the world, He is the mediator between God the Father and humankind. The exalted Christ receives everything from His Father to deliver to us, so that in turn, He can bring us back to the Father.

As I understand it, this is the same as the Orthodox position of the Father as the Source and Head of the Divinity. (Is "Godhead" the proper term here, or is that used to refer to the Trinity as a whole?)

Also, how can Christ receive the Holy Spirit from the Father (as he receives all things) if the Spirit belongs to Christ by nature/essence/procession already? That seems to be another argument against filioque, granted it's one that I just thought up on the spot and have not seen before, so I'm probably missing something.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. What if we agree that the procession from the Son is not an origin (i.e. in eternity) of the Spirit, but simply him sending forth the Spirit in time? Is that orthodox?

that is Orthodox, but the procession is through the Son, not from Him.

2. What if we insist that it's not semi-sabellianism? Maybe Sabellianism could be inferred from the filioque; does that mean that the filioque necessitates sabellianism? Can't we accept a divine mystery that the Spirit proceeds from both but yet this is not modalism?

no because how Rome has defined it (which is what the Protestants came from) is Semisabellian. we cannot ignore what they have codified into their own history, and what the West does not insist on rejecting.

3. [Perhaps this is better for a RCC site] Why do we reject the dual procession? I.e., Roman dogma insists on the procession from both "as from a single source" - why can't the Spirit eternally proceed from both as two sources?

because this contradicts the words of Christ, and the 7 ecumenical councils. and this is the heresy. you are applying a quality to Two Persons of the Trinity that you are not applying to the Third. it would be like asking why can't the Spirit begat the Son with the Father.

4. What makes us say that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father? The "ekporeuometai" (spelling?) in John 15:26 is not a perfect tense verb, so where do we get the idea of eternal? Is it simply the logical conclusion from (A) the spirit proceeds from the father and (B) the spirit is eternal so (C) the spirit eternally proceeds from the father? If so can't we replace the Major premise with (A) the spirit is sent by the father? and arrive at (C) the spirit is eternally sent from the father?

because Hebrews says the Spirit is eternal. so if God the Father is eternal, the Spirit is eternal, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Spirit's procession from the Father is eternal. it is not simply logical, it is Biblical. and procession of the Spirit is not something we can define aside from saying it is different from being begotten like the Son is begotten of the Father. the whole problem with the filioque is trying to make sense of something known only to God.

5. Isn't the EO view subordinationism for the Son [and the Spirit]?

no because procession and begotten are simply how the Son and Spirit have their unique origin in the Person of the Father. all Three Persons are known only in what makes them distinct, and the what is shared among all Three shows there is only one God.

Additionally, on the argument about the Scriptures calling the Spirit "of Christ" -- I responded that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ because the Father gives him the Spirit, not because he (the Christ) is the source of the Spirit. To which I was told:



Thoughts about the claim/accusation of adoptionism?

your friend is confusing nature with person. the Son and Spirit have their eternal origin as Persons in the Person of the Father. the nature, however, is the unoriginate Nature of God. in other words, the Son's Nature is not begotten, nor the Spirit's Nature proceeding. all Three Person's have the same unoriginate Nature

 

[AMM]

that is Orthodox, but the procession is through the Son, not from Him.

So this all boils down to where/who the Spirit comes from and originates.

no because how Rome has defined it (which is what the Protestants came from) is Semisabellian. we cannot ignore what they have codified into their own history, and what the West does not insist on rejecting.

We aren't Rome. I know the Orthodox like to think that all protestants are still papists, but we're not. Do we have a Western-leaning theology? On a lot of things, yes. But we reject their post-schism councils, including Florence. Their definitions are not binding on us. (That being said, life would be a lot easier if we had tossed off this shackle of the papacy along with the rest of their heretical innovations...)

because this contradicts the words of Christ, and the 7 ecumenical councils. and this is the heresy. you are applying a quality to Two Persons of the Trinity that you are not applying to the Third. it would be like asking why can't the Spirit begat the Son with the Father.

Hmmm. Okay, so the filioque is more or less equivalent to speculating that any other non-biblical relation between the persons of the trinity.

I.e., if Rome had done something like "Et ex Patre Spirituque natum ante ómnia sǽcula" or "Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto Patreque" to defend the divinity of the Spirit, that is equivalent (and heresy).

because Hebrews says the Spirit is eternal. so if God the Father is eternal, the Spirit is eternal, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Spirit's procession from the Father is eternal. it is not simply logical, it is Biblical. and procession of the Spirit is not something we can define aside from saying it is different from being begotten like the Son is begotten of the Father. the whole problem with the filioque is trying to make sense of something known only to God.

Okay, I think I understand. It's rationalism and speculation to change the original creed and go beyond the text of John 15:26, but it's just maintaining the pure and clear words of Christ to maintain the original wording. We can't understand any of it, but that's okay.

no because procession and begotten are simply how the Son and Spirit have their unique origin in the Person of the Father. all Three Persons are known only in what makes them distinct, and the what is shared among all Three shows there is only one God.

Got it. This is hard to wrap my mind around as a Westerner, but I see where you're coming from.

your friend is confusing nature with person. the Son and Spirit have their eternal origin as Persons in the Person of the Father. the nature, however, is the unoriginate Nature of God. in other words, the Son's Nature is not begotten, nor the Spirit's Nature proceeding. all Three Person's have the same unoriginate Nature

So in Nature, all the Persons are co-equal, co-majestic, co-eternal, co-powerful, etc.? In Nature/Essence, all three persons are entirely equal because they share the same nature. In Person, they are distinguished by their relations to each other? And each Person can either share a quality with all 3 (because of the same nature) or they have it uniquely to themself (because if 2 shared a quality, then the 3rd would be lesser?). Is that correct?

Last thing (for now):

Augustine clearly asserted the monarchy of the Father and did not view the Son and the Father as some sort of single source. He fundamentally said the following:

"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." - CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book XV (St. Augustine)

Augustine clearly here demarcates the procession of the Father from the procession of the Son. Does he mean then that the procession from the Son is eternal or temporal? We don't know. Either way would be acceptable Orthodox speculation, so long as the principle origin is the Father alone.

Is that bolded text correct? This is the first time I heard of something like that. In other words, here's my thought process/a spattering of my thoughts. Tell me if I'm correct.
1. Christ clearly states that that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father (John 15:26) eternally (Hebrews, as you explained above)
2. Nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that The Holy Spirit proceeds in the same way, either eternally or temporally from the Son.
3. Maybe the Spirit does proceed from the Son in some way -- Scripture is silent on the matter -- but He primarily/principally proceeds from the Father.
4. The Spirit proceeds through the Son clearly, as Christ states (John 15:26, 16:7). I.e., He proceeds from the Father, is sent/given to the Son (at his Baptism?), and then is sent by the Son.
5. In any case, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son temporally or eternally is mere speculation.
6. The principle origin of the Spirit must be from the Father alone to maintain balance within the Trinity, and because that is what Scripture clearly states.
7. Saying anything (for or against) about some kind of secondary procession from the Son is merely speculation, and should never be accepted as dogma.

(I know I'm approaching this in a very straightforward, rigid, logical way... I'm a mathematician, it's just how I do things )

Also, Matt, do I recall correctly that you used to be Protestant before going East? If you don't mind my asking - which denomination were you a part of?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So this all boils down to where/who the Spirit comes from and originates.

yep, because Who God is, is the question Christ answers. so what has not been revealed must be rejected.

We aren't Rome. I know the Orthodox like to think that all protestants are still papists, but we're not. Do we have a Western-leaning theology? On a lot of things, yes. But we reject their post-schism councils, including Florence. Their definitions are not binding on us. (That being said, life would be a lot easier if we had tossed off this shackle of the papacy along with the rest of their heretical innovations...)

while true, that is the history that the Reformation came from. so the errors of Rome before the Reformation impacted Protestant theology.

Hmmm. Okay, so the filioque is more or less equivalent to speculating that any other non-biblical relation between the persons of the trinity.

not only non-Biblical, but non-historic as well. Rome initially rejected the filioque as heresy as well, before they reversed their belief.

I.e., if Rome had done something like "Et ex Patre Spirituque natum ante ómnia sǽcula" or "Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto Patreque" to defend the divinity of the Spirit, that is equivalent (and heresy).

not a Latin speaker, so I dunno what you are saying here, hahaha.

Okay, I think I understand. It's rationalism and speculation to change the original creed and go beyond the text of John 15:26, but it's just maintaining the pure and clear words of Christ to maintain the original wording. We can't understand any of it, but that's okay.

not just that, but it goes against the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (no new Creed) and that of Chalcedon (all manner and teaching of the Holy Spirit is full and complete). in addition as mentioned before, Rome agreed with Constantinople IV which healed the Photian Schism which says the filioque is heresy for almost 200 years.

Got it. This is hard to wrap my mind around as a Westerner, but I see where you're coming from.

it's hard for all of us, that is why the early Fathers say not to. St Gregory the Theologian I believe once wrote that if someone tries to describe the differences between the unbegottenness of the Father, the begottenness of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, he will go mad for prying in to that which is known only to the Divine.

So in Nature, all the Persons are co-equal, co-majestic, co-eternal, co-powerful, etc.? In Nature/Essence, all three persons are entirely equal because they share the same nature. In Person, they are distinguished by their relations to each other? And each Person can either share a quality with all 3 (because of the same nature) or they have it uniquely to themself (because if 2 shared a quality, then the 3rd would be lesser?). Is that correct?

yes.

Is that bolded text correct? This is the first time I heard of something like that. In other words, here's my thought process/a spattering of my thoughts. Tell me if I'm correct.

no, because he neglects the post Schism Western councils that clearly say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, condemns us for not using the filioque, which makes it very wrong and unacceptable. he also only uses St Augustine, and does not check his work against the other Fathers, of whom reject this teaching.

1. Christ clearly states that that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father (John 15:26) eternally (Hebrews, as you explained above)
2. Nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that The Holy Spirit proceeds in the same way, either eternally or temporally from the Son.
3. Maybe the Spirit does proceed from the Son in some way -- Scripture is silent on the matter -- but He primarily/principally proceeds from the Father.
4. The Spirit proceeds through the Son clearly, as Christ states (John 15:26, 16:7). I.e., He proceeds from the Father, is sent/given to the Son (at his Baptism?), and then is sent by the Son.
5. In any case, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Son temporally or eternally is mere speculation.
6. The principle origin of the Spirit must be from the Father alone to maintain balance within the Trinity, and because that is what Scripture clearly states.
7. Saying anything (for or against) about some kind of secondary procession from the Son is merely speculation, and should never be accepted as dogma.

looks good to me. remember you can say that through the Son temporally the Spirit proceeds, since it is through the Son the Spirit is given to us all. you do see this is Fathers like St Gregory of Nyssa and St Maximos the Confessor. so that is fine. but His eternal origin is in the Father alone.

Rome has a habit of pretending that how modern Catholics view their dogma, is how they have always viewed them. it usually looks like theological damage control so they can try to claim to be the Church of Christ and explain away their innovations.

(I know I'm approaching this in a very straightforward, rigid, logical way... I'm a mathematician, it's just how I do things )

a lot looks good to my eyes.

Also, Matt, do I recall correctly that you used to be Protestant before going East? If you don't mind my asking - which denomination were you a part of?

Episcopalian turned heathen turned Evangelical turned Orthodox

 

[AMM]

yep, because Who God is, is the question Christ answers. so what has not been revealed must be rejected.

I find it interesting (and pointed this out to my Lutheran colleagues) that this is an area where we (those who tout "sola scriptura" as the final judge and rule of faith) go beyond Scripture's teaching to defend a papist tradition, whereas the EO make it clear to stop here at this point because it has not been revealed to us.

while true, that is the history that the Reformation came from. so the errors of Rome before the Reformation impacted Protestant theology.

Hmmmm perhaps.

not a Latin speaker, so I dunno what you are saying here, hahaha.

Haha I was adding "and the Father" and "and the Spirit" to parts of the Creed to show equivalent instances when this would absolutely be rejected as heretical. In English:
"...the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father and the Spirit before all worlds..."
"...came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Father..."

not just that, but it goes against the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (no new Creed) and that of Chalcedon (all manner and teaching of the Holy Spirit is full and complete). in addition as mentioned before, Rome agreed with Constantinople IV which healed the Photian Schism which says the filioque is heresy for almost 200 years.

Interesting. I knew Ephesus declared no new Creed should/could be made, but I was unaware of the doctrine you indicate in Chalcedon. Do you happen to know which canon it is?

it's hard for all of us, that is why the early Fathers say not to. St Gregory the Theologian I believe once wrote that if someone tries to describe the differences between the unbegottenness of the Father, the begottenness of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, he will go mad for prying in to that which is known only to the Divine.

Yeah but I'm able to procrastinate better when I have complicated theological mysteries to ponder and explore the depths of lol

no, because he neglects the post Schism Western councils that clearly say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, condemns us for not using the filioque, which makes it very wrong and unacceptable. he also only uses St Augustine, and does not check his work against the other Fathers, of whom reject this teaching.

Hmmm...

looks good to me. remember you can say that through the Son temporally the Spirit proceeds, since it is through the Son the Spirit is given to us all. you do see this is Fathers like St Gregory of Nyssa and St Maximos the Confessor. so that is fine. but His eternal origin is in the Father alone.

Got it.

To bring up again the adoptionism question: I gave your response.

Your friend seems to think the second and third Persons, begotten in and proceeding from eternity past respectively, can be divided from the Substance as such, that the Person of the Son can be rightly recognized the Son without possessing the Nature of God. Being begotten from all eternity, He has not beginning, but is Himself eternal, without beginning, in His person AND nature, not exclusively to His nature: "Before Abraham was, I Am." In the Beginning, we are told, yet Christ is Alpha and Omega; He IS the beginning.

To which I responded

He's not saying that any Person has a beginning. All three persons of the Trinity are eternal in Nature AND in Person. But yet we still say that the Father is the eternal origin of the Son and the Spirit. That doesn't mean any of them are non-eternal.

But this is the precise point: if His person and nature is eternal, and it is the same eternal as the Spirit, then the Father does not "give" Him the Spirit. His begotten-ness is not one of dependency; He does not depend on the Father for the Spirit or Nature, but rather has it of His nature as God, since it is the same nature.

I think you're taking reason too far here. It is a dogmatic truth that all that the Son has is given to him by the Father (cf. Jn 3:35, 13:3, 17:10, Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, 1 Cor 15:27, etc.). But yet the Son is eternal and has eternally had all things, since he co-reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit, all three equal in one majesty and one glory as one God. If the Son "has" the Spirit, then the Father gave him the Spirit (as per the verses above). Somehow, though, in a divine mystery, this is done in eternity.

In other words, how can Christ receive the Holy Spirit from the Father (as he receives all things) if the Spirit *already* belongs to Christ by nature/essence/procession?

You're the one asking "how" of what we accept in faith as a divine mystery.

Admittedly, I walked myself into a corner by claiming him over-using reason and then promptly asking a "how" question of the Divine relations... But besides that, thoughts on this dialogue?

By the way, I really appreciate the time you're taking to answer all this. I need to go to an actual Orthodox service sometime -- there's a Serbian Orthodox Church (I believe it's OCA) not to far away that does Wednesday vespers, but one of our Lutheran bishops from Kenya is in the area and having dinner with my parish, so it won't happen this week. Maybe next. I might try to go to a Saturday vigil/vespers as well at a different Orthodox church near me, but I'm going camping this weekend and not sure what time I'll be back, so again, probably not happening this week. But this is all a tangent.
Thanks again for your time; I'm most unworthy of it and sincerely appreciate your help and wisdom that you've been sharing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Haha I was adding "and the Father" and "and the Spirit" to parts of the Creed to show equivalent instances when this would absolutely be rejected as heretical. In English:
"...the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father and the Spirit before all worlds..."
"...came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Father..."

ah, si si. well, then you make it clear why procession is from the Father alone.

Interesting. I knew Ephesus declared no new Creed should/could be made, but I was unaware of the doctrine you indicate in Chalcedon. Do you happen to know which canon it is?

off the top of my head no. but it is in there. bear in mind as well that all subsequent Councils used the Creed without the Filioque. and Rome's initial rejection of the Filioque is in the Vatican, as there are a set of plates with the Creed in there without the Filioque on them.

To bring up again the adoptionism question: I gave your response.

your friend is confusing the Nature with the Person. they are distinct from each other but not divided from each other, because that is what has been revealed. procession of the Spirit and begottenness of the Son are not because of any beginning, but simply their eternal cause and origin is of the Father. simply because the Son and Spirit have their origin in the Father, does not mean that God gives the Son or Spirit anything. They simply have their origin in Him.

Admittedly, I walked myself into a corner by claiming him over-using reason and then promptly asking a "how" question of the Divine relations... But besides that, thoughts on this dialogue?

nothing more than what I would say above. although I would add, note how your friend subordinates the Spirit to defend the Divinity of the Son. if the Son has the Spirit as His Nature as God, what does that say of the Spirit? does the Spirit have the Spirit because He is God? this is the problem with the Filioque. if the Spirit is a Divine quality that both Father and Son have, is the Holy Spirit equal and Personal as well?

By the way, I really appreciate the time you're taking to answer all this. I need to go to an actual Orthodox service sometime -- there's a Serbian Orthodox Church (I believe it's OCA) not to far away that does Wednesday vespers, but one of our Lutheran bishops from Kenya is in the area and having dinner with my parish, so it won't happen this week. Maybe next. I might try to go to a Saturday vigil/vespers as well at a different Orthodox church near me, but I'm going camping this weekend and not sure what time I'll be back, so again, probably not happening this week. But this is all a tangent.
Thanks again for your time; I'm most unworthy of it and sincerely appreciate your help and wisdom that you've been sharing.

it be no problem, glad to help. and yes, check out a service when you can!

 

[FireDragon76]

Have you read this? I found it helpful in understanding the issue:

The Nicene Creed and the Filioque: A Lutheran Approach

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems to me that the issue is that the Orthodox are churches of councils, and Lutherans are churches of a book (or books). For the Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is much more important in the faith, than it is for Lutherans- it has primary authority for the Orthodox because a council authored it, whereas for Lutherans it has derived authority.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It seems to me that the issue is that the Orthodox are churches of councils, and Lutherans are churches of a book (or books). For the Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is much more important in the faith, than it is for Lutherans- it has primary authority for the Orthodox because a council authored it, whereas for Lutherans it has derived authority.

you are correct to say we are the faith of the Councils, because it was a Council that composed the book of which you speak. so for us, the Scripture has primary authority because a Council approved it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Lutherans are looking for certainty in matters of faith. Of course we do not necessarily believe that Nicea erred, but in general we see the process of councils as not being infallible. We also do not regard the Scriptures as authoritative merely because a council approved them, but because they are unquestionably apostolic (or because Christ himself testifies to their authority). In theory, we have an open canon as a result. Which is one reason we rely upon scholarship in understanding God's Word.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lutherans are looking for certainty in matters of faith. Of course we do not necessarily believe that Nicea erred, but in general we see the process of councils as not being infallible. We also do not regard the Scriptures as authoritative merely because a council approved them, but because they are unquestionably apostolic (or because Christ himself testifies to their authority). In theory, we have an open canon as a result. Which is one reason we rely upon scholarship in understanding God's Word.

when Christ speaks of the Scripture, He is only referring to the Old since the New did not exist yet. so how can you trust the New?

 

[FireDragon76]

when Christ speaks of the Scripture, He is only referring to the Old since the New did not exist yet. so how can you trust the New?

Because the books are apostolic.

Within the NT canon, we distinguish between homologoumena and antilegomena, between the books that are beyond dispute, and those that are disputed by early church fathers. Antilegomena cannot be used to establish dogmatic teachings. Which is the main reason we articulate the doctrine of justification apart from works, because James is considered to be antilegomena.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and how early did the Church make that distinction? is there any evidence for it? because Hermas and Clement were of the Seventy like Mark and Luke, and their writings are not in Scripture. and every Gnostic on the planet tied their theology to the Apostles.

so again, how do you trust the New? you are not showing a standard that is consistent.

 

[FireDragon76]

We do not pretend to do things exactly the same as the early church did. Lutheranism is the result of theological development and reflection.

Hermas and Clement are not apostolic. Clement was after the apostlic age. What we have within the NT is the certain apostolic deposit, anything else's claims to being apostolic must be judged in light of that, to see if there is agreement in doctrine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

actually, both were used as a part of the NT canon for some areas very early on. so they most certainly are Apostolic. they were also debated as being included in the canonical Scriptures, and were rightly not included, but not being Apostolic was not a part of the reason.

so I ask again, how do you trust the New?

 

[AMM]

It seems to me that the issue is that the Orthodox are churches of councils, and Lutherans are churches of a book (or books). For the Orthodox, the Nicene Creed is much more important in the faith, than it is for Lutherans- it has primary authority for the Orthodox because a council authored it, whereas for Lutherans it has derived authority.

Confessional, Orthodox (loaded term in this subforum, I'm using it in its general sense) Lutherans accept the councils. We don't pit tradition against scripture or vice versa. Scripture holds a higher place, but I've never heard anyone say we accept less than the first 4 councils. Most (including myself) accept the first 7.

I believe Luther himself said that if there had been a true ecumenical council (he wanted the Greek churches, the "evangelical" churches, and the papist churches to all be there) to discuss the matters in controversy, that it would have come to a correct decision and he would submit to its decisions.

Maybe this is just my EO leanings showing through, but I'm not sure that I'd say the NCC has a lesser authority than the Scriptures. That opens the door to a lot of heresy (JW, Mormons, etc.). It's a fine line, and I'm not sure where I fall on it.

you are correct to say we are the faith of the Councils, because it was a Council that composed the book of which you speak. so for us, the Scripture has primary authority because a Council approved it.

Which Council? I was under the impression that the EO also technically had an "open canon" since it had never been ruled on in a council (I believe Trent was the first council to officially decree which books are included, although there had been local synods that ruled on it first, and obviously you don't accept Trent as authoritative). But for all practical purposes, the "official" position is the full septuagint and the 27 books of the NT.
FWIW, a lot of Lutherans have no qualms with the "extended" canon of Rome and the East. I'm one of them. The deuterocanonical books (of both new and old testament) were included in Lutheran bibles for ages and the OT Deuterocanon only stopped appearing when the anglicans (I think) began printing bibles in the US without them
The distinction between disputed/universally accepted books appears in Eusebius of Ceasarea's The Church History as well as Jerome's writings. I'm not sure if it shows up earlier.