• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Filioque

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
For Reformed and Calvinistic folks only.

Have you put much thought into this historic controversy? It seems the Eastern Orthodox denomination, yes it is a State church and denomination, believes in a form of subordinationism and dualism on this subject.
 

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I decided a bit ago that I need to know more about the difference between ἐκπορεύεσθαι, προϊέναι and the Latin procedere, which is what the Vatican seems to believe is the cause of the controversy.

Basically the question comes down to is procedere a proper Latin equivalent of ἐκπορεύεσθαι, is there even one? If procedere can only mean προϊέναι as the Vatican is now claiming, does ἐκπορεύεσθαι have extra connotations such that the filioque cannot be used here?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I decided a bit ago that I need to know more about the difference between ἐκπορεύεσθαι, προϊέναι and the Latin procedere, which is what the Vatican seems to believe is the cause of the controversy.

Basically the question comes down to is procedere a proper Latin equivalent of ἐκπορεύεσθαι, is there even one? If procedere can only mean προϊέναι as the Vatican is now claiming, does ἐκπορεύεσθαι have extra connotations such that the filioque cannot be used here?

I'm not so much interested in the arguments between the traditionalists but a Reformed or Calvinist view of the filioque. Does the Spirit proceed from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son? Do you believe it is subordinationism to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone?

I'm at work right now and don't have the quote, I believe it was from Augustine, that whatever the Father is doing the Son is also doing...or something like that. I believe it was common in the West with the Synod of Toledo (675) claiming 'from the Father and the Son.'

What do you folks believe the scriptures teach on the subject? I think its pretty clear but I'd like to read some informed Reformed responses.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Googled this one:

'Scripture enables us to know in the Father the principle, auctoritas, in the Son being begotten and born, nativitas, and in the Spirit the union of the Father and the Son, Patris Filiique communitas... The society of the unity of the Church of God, outside of which there is no remission of sins, is in a sense the work of the Holy Spirit, with, of course, the cooperation of the Father and the Son, because the Holy Spirit himself is in a sense the society of the Father and Son.The Father is not possessed in common as Father by the Son and the Holy Spirit, because he is not the Father of the two. The Son is not possessed in common as Son by the Father and the Holy Spirit, because he is not the Son of the two. But the Holy Spirit is possessed in common by the Father and the Son, because he is the one Spirit of the two.' - Augustine
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Another:

"The Son is from the Father, the Spirit also is from the Father.
But the former is begotten, the latter proceeds.
So the former is Son of the Father from Whom He is begotten,
but the latter is the Spirit of both since He proceeds from both. ...
The Father is the author of the Spirit's procession
because He begot such a Son,
and in begetting Him made Him also the source
from which the Spirit proceeds."
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,487
10,855
New Jersey
✟1,335,862.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The Eastern church sees the Father as the source of the Trinity. I think there are advantages to that. In John, Jesus spoke of the Father sending the Spirit. That doesn't make Christ less. It's a question of the different role of the three persons.

Personally either wording is OK with me. They can both be understood as having similar meaning. However historically, Nicea is a universal creed. I agree with the East that the West has no business changing the wording on its own.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not so much interested in the arguments between the traditionalists but a Reformed or Calvinist view of the filioque. Does the Spirit proceed from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son? Do you believe it is subordinationism to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone?

Based on my reading of the paraklete passages in John it is right to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however I think it would be rash to pass judgment on the EO church unless the Holy Spirit can ἐκπορεύεσθαι from the Son
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
A quote from Bavinck, "Eastern objections to the term filioque is a last lingering remnant of subordinationism and tends to a dualistic separation of orthodoxy and mysticism." Reformed Dogmatics vol.2.259

Any idea how the Eastern objection 'tends to a dualistic separation?'

I agree with the addition of the filioque because it seems clear from scripture, the addition to the creed is needed, we must confession what we believe.

A few more quotes from other boards:

On Acts 2.33, "You see and hear us speak with tongues that we never learned; probably there was an observable change in the air of their countenances, which they saw, as well as heard the change of their voice and language; now this is from the Holy Ghost, whose coming is an evidence that Jesus is exalted, and he has received this gift from the Father, to confer it upon the church, which plainly bespeaks him to be the Mediator, or middle person between God and the church. The gift of the Holy Ghost was, First, A performance of divine promises already made; here it is called the promise of the Holy Ghost; many exceedingly great and precious promises the divine power has given us, but this is the promise, by way of eminency, as that of the Messiah had been, and this is the promise that includes all the rest; hence God's giving the Holy Spirit to those that ask him (Luke xi. 13) is his giving them all good things, Matt. vii. 11. Christ received the promise of the Holy Ghost, that is, the promised gift of the Holy Ghost, and has given it to us; for all the promises are yea and amen in him. Secondly, It was a pledge of all divine favours further intended; what you now see and hear is but an earnest of greater things."

Heppe quoting Rijssen, "What the difference is between generation of the Son and the procession of the H. Spirit cannot be explained and it is safer not to know than to enquire into it. The Scholastics would look for the difference in the operation of intellectus and voluntas, so that the generation of the Son is brought about by means of intellectus, whence he is called the wisdom of God; but procession by means of voluntas, whence it is called love and charity. But as this is said without Scripture, it involves rather than explains matters. Those talk more sanely, who babbling in such a difficult matter find the distinction in three things. (1) In principle: because the Son emanates from the Father alone, but the H. Spirit from Father and Son at once. (2) In mode: because the Son emanates per vim generationis, which culminates not only in personality but also in likeness, on account of which the Son is called the image of the Father and according to which the Son receives the property of communicating the same essence to another person. But the Spirit does so by spiratio, which ends only in personality, and through which the person who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating that essence to another. (3) In order: because as the Son is the second person, but the H. Spirit the third, generation by our way of thinking, precedes spiratio, although really they are co-eternal."
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
From Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 4:

The triunity of God (371–381). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

B. The Ad extra “Sending” and the Office of the Spirit
1. The “sending” of the Spirit. The ad intra procession of the Spirit is mirrored and followed by the ad extra procession or “mission” of the Spirit. Indeed, the ad intra procession, or, in Greek, ἑκπόρευσις, of the Spirit takes its name from the identification of the Spirit as “sent” or “sent forth” (John 15:26). The commentators often indicate, moreover, that the Johannine text can be subject to two interpretations.

What proceeding from the Father is here meant, is questioned among the divines: some understand it only of his coming out from the Father, and being poured out upon the disciples in the days of Pentecost: others understand it of the Holy Spirit’s eternal proceeding.

In any case, the term “procession” or sending is drawn from this text as descriptive both of the eternal, ad intra life and of the temporal, ad extra activity of the Spirit. Of course, whatever the interpretation of this particular text, the ad extra sending or procession of the Spirit was never in question: it is clearly taught in John 14:26, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name”; Joel 2:28–29, as cited in Acts 2:16–17, “It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh”; Luke 24:49, “behold I send the promise of my Father upon you” (usually interpreted as referring to the Spirit at Pentecost, given Acts 1:4 and 2:33); and Galatians 4:6, “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.”

This outward sending of the Spirit, moreover, observes the pattern described in general in the discussion of works of the Godhead ad extra: there is an undivided work of the Godhead in which the persons have “appropriate” tasks, manifesting not only the unity of God’s work but the distinction of persons and the exercise of their personal properties. In the case of the Spirit, as in the earthly work of Christ, these tasks can be distinguished into the “ordinary” and the “extraordinary,” namely, the work that the Spirit performs broadly and generally, according to the general biblical revelation of his proper work, and discrete works, particularly miracles, that are performed but once for a very specific purpose. In no case ought the Spirit to be regarded as a mere instrument of God, as an “instrumental cause” or a “servant,” but rather as one working together with the Father and the Son, without any inferiority of station.

In the controversies of the seventeenth century, argument over the sending of the Spirit proceeded in several directions. Among the Socinians, Biddle understood John 15:26 and related texts not only as an ad extra description of the divine mandate to the Spirit; he also argued that they disproved the omnipresence of the Spirit, given that “sending” refers to a movement from place to place. Nye, who held the more usual Socinian doctrine of the Spirit, focused his reading of the text on the Spirit as testifying or witnessing, and, as he had argued of John 16:13, where the “Spirit of Truth” is promised as the apostles’ guide “into all truth,” he claimed that John 15:26 identifies the Spirit not as a divine person but as the power or inspiration of God.

Against the more typical Socinian argument, the Reformed emphasize the “sending” of the Spirit: the language applies to a person, not to a power or an inspiration. As noted above of the person of the Spirit, in such biblical passages as Matthew 3:16, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32, the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove indicates his independent subsistence, as do the powers attributed to him: one who has subsistence, understanding, will, and power is not a mere power or inspiration, but a person. Against arguments like those of Biddle, Reformed orthodox writers insisted that care should be taken so as not to use the language of procession or sending ad extra in such a way as to imply either a local motion of the Spirit or a change in the Godhead. When the Spirit is identified as “sent,” this ought to be understood as God’s “eternal will and decree to accomplish something by the … Holy Ghost, and of the execution and manifestation of his will through the working of the … Holy Ghost.” Thus the sending of the Spirit on Pentecost does not indicate the absence of the omnipresent Spirit before Pentecost: the Spirit is understood as “sent into the world, not because [he] began to exist where [he] did not exist before; but because [he] accomplished in the world what was the will of the Father, and showed [himself] present and efficacious according to the will of the Father.”

2. The “office” of the Spirit. This sending of the Spirit points directly toward what can be called the officium oeconomicum, the office or work of the Spirit in the economy or administration of the world order and, especially, of salvation. As indicated previously in discussion the identification of the third person of the Trinity as “Spirit,” he is, as Spirit in the personal sense, the “immediate agent of divine works,” the person “through whom the Father and Son immediately influence the hearts of the elect.” The Spirit is both the emissarius Trinitatis and the advocatus Trinitatis in the fulfillment of the decree, the former in the work of creation, the latter in the work of salvation: for the Father “delineates” or “designates” the work; the Son, in his office, “obtains” or “accomplishes” the objective result; the Spirit “completes” or “finishes” the work.

The “office” or “work” of the Holy Spirit, then, follows from this definition of the Spirit’s relation to the Father and the Son and from the nature of the work performed through him: in creation, the Spirit is said to brood or hover over the waters (Gen. 1:2) in the same terms that a hen is said to gather and protect her chicks (Deut. 32:11)—as, in the same sense, the Spirit is called the “finger of God” (Luke 11:20) and the “power of God” (Luke 1:35; Rom. 15:13) or the one who works miracles (Matt. 12:28), all of which identify him as the “emissary of the Trinity,” perfecting and completing the work that he shares with the Father and the Son.

The Spirit is also called the “paraclete”—manifesting him as advocatus Trinitatis in the work of perfecting the salvation of human beings, again, completing what the Father designs and the Son accomplishes objectively. In the work of salvation,

the office of the Holy Ghost is to produce sanctification in the people of God. This he performs immediately from the Father and the Son. It is for this reason that he is called the Spirit of holiness. The office of the Holy Ghost may be said to embrace the following things: to instruct, to regenerate, to unite to Christ and God, to rule, to comfort and strengthen us.

To this definition, it may be objected that all of the works performed belong to the Father and the Son and, therefore, do not constitute a distinct office in any way specific to the Spirit. The office of the Spirit appears, however, in the distinction of the manner of working—for in all of these activities, although they are included in the willing and effecting of the work or gift, the Father and the Son do not work immediately, but through the Spirit, while the Spirit works immediately in believers. Thus, there is a distinct office that belongs to the immediate agent of the work. In the words of Goodwin,

whereas both God and Christ, those other two persons, are also in Scripture said to be in us, and to dwell in us, yet this indwelling is more special, and immediationi suppositi, attributed to the Holy ghost; which, as it serves to give an honor peculiar to him, so when set in such a comparison, even with them, must be meant and understood of this person immediately, and not by his graces only. Yes, the other two persons are said to dwell in us, and the Godhead itself, because the Holy Ghost dwells in us, he being the person that makes entry, and takes possession first, in the name and for the use of the other two, and bringeth them in.

The Spirit specifically performs the work of God among human beings, leading them toward faith in Christ the Mediator, thereby confirming with sanctification what the Father decrees and the Son has accomplished. In this context, the Spirit is said to teach (John 14:26), to send forth the teachers of the church (Acts 13:2), to give them the requisite gifts (Acts 2:4), to inspire the authors of Scripture (2 Pet. 1:21), and in all this, to be the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17)." Muller, R. A. (2003).​
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,474
✟94,054.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Personally I think it is much ado about nothing. The Father purposed to glorify Himself in the Son. The Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14) because Christ shall in all things have the preeminence. Col. 1:18 There is no subordination in the Trinity there is only purpose. Each Person of the Triune God works for an ordained purpose. That purpose is the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Cor. 4:6
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,735
Canada
✟877,354.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Personally I think it is much ado about nothing. The Father purposed to glorify Himself in the Son. The Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14) because Christ shall in all things have the preeminence. Col. 1:18 There is no subordination in the Trinity there is only purpose. Each Person of the Triune God works for an ordained purpose. That purpose is the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Cor. 4:6

That was my next question, thanks twin, does it really affect how we view God?

I honestly believe most professing Christians are functional Unitarians.
 
Upvote 0