Filioque is Objectively not Necessary

[BrendanG]

Assume:
1. The Apostles had correct faith
2. The Filioque wasn't added until 589 AD

Conclusion: The filioque is not necessary for right Christian faith, because otherwise the Apostles (and everyone prior to 589 AD) are heretics.


I cannot understand why Protestant denominations stick with the Filioque so stubbornly. The reformers criticized the accretions of the Catholic church, but the Filioque is also an obvious accretion. The only way the Protestant position makes sense is if the Filioque is correct, but not essential. But in that case, why not omit it for the sake of greater unity with Christian denominations that hate the Filioque?

It seems to me that if the Filioque is strictly necessary, then all Christians from 34-589 AD are heretics. If it is strictly necessary to omit the Filioque, then the majority of Christians from 589-1054 AD were in communion with heretics. Neither position makes sense to me. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the filioque cannot possibly be very important; but that leads to another problem.

This issue (and other areas of confusion in the church) make me believe that Christ cannot possibly be actively guiding his church. He could have appeared in his glorified body at any of the Church councils and said, "Quit arguing about this nonsense!" and a thousand years of division in the church could have been greatly alleviated.

I have a parable for you:
A father with many sons woke up one day and told his sons, "Come work in the field with me." However, all of his sons stayed inside and argued amongst themselves about the purpose of blood in their father's body. One son said, "The heart is the center of thought and feeling, and it carries its messages throughout the body via the blood. When the heart decides to move an arm or a leg, it beats, and the beating causes the arms and legs to move." Another son said, "The heart carries materials back and forth across the body. For instance, it carries food from the stomach to the anus." Another son said, "The blood serves no function; it is simply where the vital energies of the body reside." Each brother had a different opinion than the others, and for this, they all mutually disowned each other. They all claimed that it's not possible to love one's father properly unless one has a proper understanding of his circulatory system. Meanwhile, their old father was working in the field alone.

In this parable, the father is God, the brothers are different church denominations, and they are arguing about the Trinity, Christology, and atonement theories.

I'm not aware that Jesus ever explicitly addressed Christology or the Trinity. The only thing you can get from the text for sure is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist (since Jesus mentioned them), and they are somehow related to one-another. IMO, if anyone goes much beyond this, then they are talking nonsense.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What's the filioque again?

 

[Aaron112]

I'm not aware that Jesus ever explicitly addressed Christology or the Trinity. The only thing you can get from the text for sure is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist (since Jesus mentioned them), and they are somehow related to one-another. IMO, if anyone goes much beyond this, then they are talking nonsense.

yep

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So I looked it up and found this:

Does this mean you don't believe in the Trinity?

 

[Philip_B]

Assume:
1. The Apostles had correct faith
2. The Filioque wasn't added until 589 AD

I really agree with you, however have some caution.

1. If you mean the Apostles, I will agree, however if you mean the Apostles Creed then there are issues I would take.

2. 589 refers to the third Synod of Toledo, and for a long essays worth of answer I do not think it was added at this Council. It seems to have crept into Gaul, as by the 790's Charlemagne was arguing with the Pope for it, and the Pope's resisted. It was not used in Rome till the 14th of February 1014.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1. The Apostles had correct faith

The apostles and their generation could commonly heal people and resurrect them as well, strike people who spoke against them with curses and other such things. Their words behaved as if God was really with them.

Until the faith returns to such a state where it is common to be like the original Christianity, what the apostles had is a moot point .. since we don't have a time machine.

The current faith developed over time due to the fact that the transitional glory went poof at one point, and we are left with what we have today.

 

[jas3]

What's the filioque again?

It's an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Latin version of the Creed was modified to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque in Latin), rather than just from the Father.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Latin version of the Creed was modified to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque in Latin), rather than just from the Father.

So that's the filoque? That sounds a bit like modalism tho. It would be effectively saying the father is the son.

 

[jas3]

Conclusion: The filioque is not necessary for right Christian faith, because otherwise the Apostles (and everyone prior to 589 AD) are heretics.

Although I don't profess the filioque, I will point out that this argument could also be made against the Nicene Creed itself (and indeed it is by heretical unitarian sects).

The only way the Protestant position makes sense is if the Filioque is correct, but not essential.

That essentially is the Protestant position.

But in that case, why not omit it for the sake of greater unity with Christian denominations that hate the Filioque?

Again to play devil's advocate, removing part of your confession of faith you believe is correct in order to appease what you see as an incorrect belief among outsiders is the first step on the path to destruction. If any denomination wants to return to the pre-filioquist form of the Creed, it should be done for the sake of fidelity to the ancient form of the Creed, not for the sake of ecumenism.

It seems to me that if the Filioque is strictly necessary, then all Christians from 34-589 AD are heretics. If it is strictly necessary to omit the Filioque, then the majority of Christians from 589-1054 AD were in communion with heretics.

The flaw in this argument is that the West didn't flip from non-filioquist to filioquist on January 1, 589. The first liturgical use of the filioque in Rome was in 1014.

This issue (and other areas of confusion in the church) make me believe that Christ cannot possibly be actively guiding his church.

"I am with you until the end of the age" and "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" haven't ceased to be true.

He could have appeared in his glorified body at any of the Church councils and said, "Quit arguing about this nonsense!" and a thousand years of division in the church could have been greatly alleviated.

This is just the problem of divine hiddenness stated from a Christian perspective. He could also appear bodily to atheists and tell them they need to believe in Him to be saved, but He doesn't. That doesn't mean God has abandoned atheists, and He hasn't abandoned the Church.

In this parable, the father is God, the brothers are different church denominations, and they are arguing about the Trinity, Christology, and atonement theories.

This parable presents a false dichotomy between discerning correct doctrine and fulfilling the Great Commission. You can do both.

I'm not aware that Jesus ever explicitly addressed Christology or the Trinity. The only thing you can get from the text for sure is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist (since Jesus mentioned them), and they are somehow related to one-another. IMO, if anyone goes much beyond this, then they are talking nonsense.

But we (and the Nicene Fathers) aren't archaeologists with nothing to go on but some manuscripts, nor are we an island cargo cult that has found an object from another culture and builds a religion around our own ideas of it rather than its actual context. We know what the Apostles taught and we know the consistent teaching of the Fathers who received the apostolic tradition. We also know that God Himself is guiding the Church. Therefore, we can trust that the ecumenical councils taught correct doctrine and that the true faith and the true Church have been preserved over the past two millennia.

 

[BrendanG]

What's the filioque again?

It is a word that was added to the Nicaean Creed which means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. In the original formulation, the Holy Spirit is only said top proceed from the Father.

I really agree with you, however have some caution.

1. If you mean the Apostles, I will agree, however if you mean the Apostles Creed then there are issues I would take.

2. 589 refers to the third Synod of Toledo, and for a long essays worth of answer I do not think it was added at this Council. It seems to have crept into Gaul, as by the 790's Charlemagne was arguing with the Pope for it, and the Pope's resisted. It was not used in Rome till the 14th of February 1014.

I asked google when the Filioque was first used, and it gave me the date 589. I was lazy and just accepted it. If that's not the right date, then I made a mistake. I think it does not change the main argument very much though.

 

[BrendanG]

Again to play devil's advocate, removing part of your confession of faith you believe is correct in order to appease what you see as an incorrect belief among outsiders is the first step on the path to destruction. If any denomination wants to return to the pre-filioquist form of the Creed, it should be done for the sake of fidelity to the ancient form of the Creed, not for the sake of ecumenism.

This ignores the part of my argument which is that this particular formulation of the creed is clearly not necessary. I think protestants can distinguish between what they consider to be essential and nonessential doctrines.

The flaw in this argument is that the West didn't flip from non-filioquist to filioquist on January 1, 589. The first liturgical use of the filioque in Rome was in 1014.

Wikipedia says that the idea came earlier than 1014, but that it wasn't officially introduced into the liturgy until 1014. I don't know if they would have considered false teachings not in the liturgy to be heresy.

"I am with you until the end of the age" and "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" haven't ceased to be true.

The behavior of Christians is actually one of the great stumbling blocks for my faith.

This parable presents a false dichotomy between discerning correct doctrine and fulfilling the Great Commission. You can do both.

If love of truth and church unity are parts of the great commission, then pretending to know stuff which you don't really know (like by arguing about Christology) is directly contrary to the great commission.

 

[Philip_B]

I asked google when the Filioque was first used, and it gave me the date 589. I was lazy and just accepted it. If that's not the right date, then I made a mistake. I think it does not change the main argument very much though.

The generally accepted wisdom is that as you suggest, and I meant no criticism. It was probably not part of Saruum usage, so not widespread in England till 1066, William the Conquerer.

 

[jas3]

This ignores the part of my argument which is that this particular formulation of the creed is clearly not necessary.

I acknowledged that by talking about what a good reason to remove the filioque would be. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be removed from the Protestant confessions, just that ecumenism is not a good reason to do it, because that leads to seeking the most milquetoast, noncommittal version of Christianity possible, which is antithetical to Christianity itself.

I think protestants can distinguish between what they consider to be essential and nonessential doctrines.

No, they can't. You can find traditionalist Protestants who would say the filioque is an essential doctrine. Historically (and possibly today as well), Protestants taught that the perpetual virginity of Mary was an essential doctrine; today, most Protestants don't even believe in her perpetual virginity, much less say it's essential.

Wikipedia says that the idea came earlier than 1014, but that it wasn't officially introduced into the liturgy until 1014. I don't know if they would have considered false teachings not in the liturgy to be heresy.

That's exactly the problem: schism is very, very serious, and is to be avoided at all costs short of compromising the faith. If there's a possible justification for a heresy not being taught in an official capacity, most people are going to hold to that justification until they can't anymore. The line where a near-universal belief becomes official doctrine is blurry, especially historically when it would be difficult to get a handle on just how widespread a belief was, but changing the liturgy is definitely across it.

The behavior of Christians is actually one of the great stumbling blocks for my faith.

It has been for me as well.

If love of truth and church unity are parts of the great commission, then pretending to know stuff which you don't really know (like by arguing about Christology) is directly contrary to the great commission.

You can really know Christology; see my paragraph about us not being archaeologists. We have the testimony of the early Christians on what they were taught, we have the Scriptures, and we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Further, the Christological controversies may seem like hairsplitting today, but they arose in the context of people teaching ideas about the relationship of Christ with the Father that would compromise our Lord's divinity or His Atonement. If love of truth and Church unity are part of the Great Commission, then you can't have parts of the Church that teach contradictory and blasphemous doctrines.

 

[Palmfever]

It's an addition to the Nicene Creed. The Latin version of the Creed was modified to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque in Latin), rather than just from the Father.

John 14:16-17
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

Acts 2:33
Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear

 

[Diamond72]

Conclusion: The filioque is not necessary for right Christian faith, because otherwise the Apostles (and everyone prior to 589 AD) are heretics.

The Filioque debate highlights a significant theological difference between the Western and Eastern Churches. While these differences are important, let us remember that our faith in Christ binds us together. It's crucial that we seek understanding and unity, focusing on the core truths of the Gospel—our shared belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we navigate these complexities, may we do so with grace and love, always striving to reflect the unity Christ desires for His followers."

 

[jas3]

John 14:16-17
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

Acts 2:33
Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear

Do you have anything to say about those? Only John 15:26 talks about procession, and as you quoted, the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[Jipsah]

The behavior of Christians is actually one of the great stumbling blocks for my faith.

I suspect you'd find quite a few dodgy characters in any religion you'd care to name. Fallen humans are like that.

 

[Diamond72]

The behavior of Christians is actually one of the great stumbling blocks for my faith.

That is why the Holy Spirit of God is to be our teacher and our Guide. NOT man. But there is nothing better than to worship God together with our brothers and sisters in the Lord. In God we are united, apart from God are divided.