Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the past, extremely influential Eastern theologians (Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, etc.) have rejected the Filioque on important theological grounds.

Likewise, the Latin Catholic church insists on the insertion of "and the Son" into the Nicene creed.

What is the weight of importance for the Filioque in Reformed theology...or is it somewhat of a non-factor in the grand scheme?

share|improve this question
    
Great question! Would you possibly be interested in broadening this question to include all Protestants? –  Matthew Moisen Mar 29 at 6:35
    
@Matthew Moisen I was originally tempted to include all protestant groups, but refrained for fear of being to broad. Is there a certain denomination you are referring to? –  Charles Alsobrook Mar 29 at 13:20
    
I don't think its too broad. I would be curious if the filoque affects each and every Protestant denomination :) –  Matthew Moisen Mar 29 at 19:09
3  
I tend to think that different Protestant traditions are going to have some quite different takes on this (as they do on creeds in general) and opening this up to all of them would only mean none of them get done justice. Please don't. –  Caleb Apr 1 at 16:25
add comment

3 Answers 3

The Filioque is considered to be of extremely significant importance in Reformed Theology. Even in Reformed-flavored Protestantism (such as that found at The Gospel Coalition), it has implications for Scripture's authority, as well as preaching and discipleship. These implications include the authority of Scripture and the preaching and discipleship of the church: the Scriptures must be our final authority for deciding matters of faith and practice, rather than the councils of fallible men (which are useful insofar as they are in agreement with the Word of God) ; for preaching and discipleship--when Christians are commanded to live holy lives, they are enabled to do so by the Spirit of Christ in them.

For it's significance in specifically Reformed thinking, Richard Muller writes in his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics,

The Reformed exegetes, moreover, understood the issue to be one of exegesis, not merely an issue of the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and found the biblical text to be entirely of one accord in favor of double procession.

Which is further confirmation of the Reformed view that Scripture is the ultimate authority for questions of faith and practice.

In a lecture delivered at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Nov. 10, 1999, Robert Letham says,

According to the West the Eastern repudiation of the filioque leaves no clear relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is in odd contrast to the patristic teaching of perichoresis, whereby the persons of the Trinity indwell and interpenetrate one another. The West holds that this exhibits subordinationist tendencies reaching back as far as Origen, for in the East the Son and the Holy Spirit are commonly said to derive their deity from the Father. In contrast, the filioque affirms the intimate relation between the Son and the Spirit, and thus between the Word and Spirit. The East’s position, the West claims, has led to a gulf between theology and piety. Speculative theology, grounded on the Logos, has been separated from worship, mediated by the Holy Spirit. Thus Eastern piety, so Western observers like Bavinck claim, is unduly dominated by mysticism. 14

Although many historic Reformed theologians would disagree with him, Letham considers this argument to actually be flawed. So he offers what he considers a stronger argument:

A third objection, however, carries much greater weight. Following John of Damascus, the East tends to consider that the essence of God is unknowable, only God’s energies or operations being revealed, the things around him (“all that we can affirm concerning God does not shew forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of his nature”-- τα περι την φυσιν). 17 This dichotomy is used to offset some of the Biblical evidence for the joint and coordinate involvement of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit. As a sympathetic critic like T.F. Torrance argues, it drives a wedge between the inner life of God and his saving activity in history, ruling out any real access to knowing God in himself.18 It also departs from earlier Greek patristic thought, which rejected this distinction.19 Besides opening a yawning chasm between the economic and the ontological, the tendency seems to be towards a quarternity rather than a trinity—the unknowable divine essence plus the three revealed persons.

It's worth noting that Letham ultimately comes down somewhat in the middle on the Filioque, and suggests in his lecture that both West and East could come to agreement on the topic. Since Letham's work is relatively recent (1999), I'm not sure how widely this is accepted.

In this article Bojidar Marinov (a Bulgarian Reformed missionary leader) writes about the historical and cultural implications of the Filioque for the East and West. He concludes that the Filioque is the prime reason for the theological and cultural differences between the East and West.

Faith has consequences. What started as an innocent difference in wording, by one word only, actually led over a long period of time to a huge and not so innocent difference in faith, then ideology, then social practice, then culture. The changes were not immediate, but even as early as the 9th and the 10th centuries it was visible. The Western Church was compiling the Canon Law; the Eastern Church was compiling the Lives of the Saints. The Western Church was fighting kings and emperors over the validity of the old royal/pagan laws; the Eastern Church was writing treatises on the emperors as divine legislators. The Western Church was developing the idea of practical imitation of Christ; the Eastern Church was developing the idea of the mystical imitation of Christ. Christ’s place in the representative work of the Spirit made the difference. The filioque made the difference.

So for the historical Reformed position, the Filioque not only develops from the text of Scripture and impacts how one understands who God is, but it also uniquely affects the history and piety of the church.

This is particularly evident in understanding how it was good for the church that Jesus went away physically. In John 16:7, ESV, Jesus said, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." Though the disciples were disturbed that Jesus said he was going away, they didn't know what to make of his words. Jesus can't have been referring to his second coming because in John 14:19 ,using nearly identical language he says that "yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me." So the seeing wasn't going to be that of the world seeing him return whereby they would fall down in fear before him, nor was it going to be the world seeing him which resulted in them hating and killing him. Rather, the seeing was going to be the church having Jesus' real spiritual presence by His Spirit. Jesus rose and ascended bodily, but he sent the Spirit to the church to fulfill his promise that he would come again to them after he had left.

The Spirit reveals Christ. In Reformed theology, this is seen as the chief work of the Spirit. People sometimes divorce the work of the Spirit from that of making Christ known, but the Spirit hasn't spoken of himself as having a separate work besides that of making Christ known. This illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is what makes Christ known as more and more beautiful to the believer. If the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, then He can provide access to the Father apart from Christ. This goes against the biblical teaching that our access to the Father is through the Son, and by the Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and through Christ we have access to the Father. The filioque affects the very core of the Christian life--union and communion with the Triune God.

Addendum, if anyone has a subscription to WTJ (perhaps also available through your theological library or even interlibrary loan), they could see more than the first page of this article which is specifically on the importance of the filioque for Reformed theology.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for this very informative answer! –  Charles Alsobrook Apr 1 at 1:47
add comment

How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology?

John 14:26 tells us,

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name...

John 15:26 tells us,

When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.

These Scriptures indicate that the Spirit is sent forth by both the Father and the Son. At the heart of the filioque clause what we find is a desire (need?) to protect the deity of the Holy Spirit.

Now, while the Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), those who are at variance with the filioque clause foster the belief that to declare the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit “subservient” to the Father and Son. Those who are in favor of the filioque clause believe that the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son has no bearing on the Spirit being equally God with the Father and the Son.

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 360–362—

A doctrine is but a precept in the style of a proposition; and a precept is but a doctrine in the form of a command.… Theology is God’s garden; its trees are trees of his planting; and ‘all the trees of the Lord are full of sap’ (Ps. 104:16).

Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 162—

It ordinarily requires the shock of some great event to startle men into clear apprehension and crystallization of their substantial belief. Such a shock was given by the rough and coarse doctrine of Arius, upon which the conclusion arrived at in the Council of Nice followed as rapidly as in chilled water the crystals of ice will sometimes form when the containing vessel receives a blow.

Church dogmatics is no mere tautology, nor a regurgitation of inferences. The word itself requires careful thought, supposition, and opinion. Dogmatic Theology has two principles:

  1. The absolute authority of creeds, as decisions of the church, and:
  2. The application to these creeds of formal logic, for the purpose of demonstrating their truth to the understanding.

For the Roman Catholic Church, the highest recognized "dogma" is the church itself, and not the Scriptures (which are never seen as having any degree of preeminence over the church). For Protestant churches, the ultimate "dogma" is ascribed to the Scriptures themselves, and everything else must be judged by that dogma.

Thus, in answer to the original question...

How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology?

In light of the fact that the controversy has been persistent, and continues to this very day, the answer must be ascertained on an individual basis with regard to the person of the Holy Spirit. Is the result of the filioque clause an actual diminishing of the Holy Spirit, or is that diminishing imagined.

share|improve this answer
1  
It doesn't quite answer the question; you provide an introduction to the importance of the clause but say nothing at all concerning its impact on Reformed teaching. –  Ryan Frame Apr 1 at 23:49
add comment

How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology? It changes nothing at all.

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NKJV)

In the creed from either perspective it says "who proceeds from". Now the father has told us.

I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. (Deuteronomy 18:18 NKJV)

Now since the spirit is also of the attitude of a person, and that by faith we can avoid denial which leads to both anger and depression. The Holy spirit proceeded through the literal physical body of the Christ who was given the words, by the Father, as was explained. Therefore the spirit of humility and acceptance proceeded both through the manifestation of the Father through the Son. As a second witness to this he has said.

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14 NKJV)

Now proven through the science of the stages of grief. Only by acceptance can the spirit return to the Holy Spirit that was poured out on all flesh as stated by Peter.

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. (Acts 2:17 NKJV)

This state of acceptance happens through two channels. Either through the forgiveness offered by Jesus or by offerings fulfilling Old Testament Law.

This can be proven with the current occurrences of lawsuits. The judges of today now declare the acceptable sacrifice to occur to make recompense to the spirit. Yet still standing in perfectness is the forgiveness offered through Jesus.

Therefore since the Holy Spirit can be obtained by the teachings of Jesus, which where given to him by the Father. It thus proceeded from both and also of the Father for it is also written:

Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. (John 5:19 NKJV)

Also since forgiveness can be learned by the sacrifice offered by the Jesus on the cross because for some blood is necessary to obtain forgiveness. Credit also can be given to anyone who has taught the forgiveness. For anyone who has taught the forgiveness has been a partaker of the giving of the spirit. Yet indeed if we were to add this to the creed then worship would be very long indeed. So the credit can be given to God, God's thought of himself, the words that his thought had said, and also his decision to stop thinking of himself for the days before he resurrected the thought of himself and of finally restoring the thought of himself to its normal place, his mighty right hand. By all this we can simplify to "who proceeds from the Father" yet it still is correct to say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", yet it could also be correct to say "who proceeds from the Father, the Son, and the Saints." for regardless of who is saying the message of life, the origin came from the Father and is Most Holy.

You have heard; See all this. And will you not declare it? I have made you hear new things from this time, Even hidden things, and you did not know them. They are created now and not from the beginning; And before this day you have not heard them, Lest you should say, ‘Of course I knew them.’ Surely you did not hear, Surely you did not know; Surely from long ago your ear was not opened. For I knew that you would deal very treacherously, And were called a transgressor from the womb. “For My name’s sake I will defer My anger, And for My praise I will restrain it from you, So that I do not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it; For how should My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another. (Isaiah 48:6-11 NKJV)

share|improve this answer
2  
Not only does this not answer the question (it says nothing at all about Reformed Protestants or even Protestants in general), most of it doesn't seem to be even relevant to the historical filioque debate and is clearly not historical. This site is not for forwarding your own ideas, only for explaining established teachings. This answer completely fails to represent anybody as far as I can figure, certainly not those questioned in the first place. –  Caleb Apr 1 at 17:48
1  
@Only he is good Not really sure what you are getting at here? I do perceive that this is strictly nothing more than your own individual commentary about scripture. I'm looking for solid, historical theology from prominent Reformed theologians...such as Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, MacArthur, Sproul... –  Charles Alsobrook Apr 1 at 20:26
    
@Caleb The answer is based from the Reformed Protestants perspective, Photios I of Constantinople may have condemned the change, but the meaning to Nicene creed remains the same as I pointed out. Now the Latin Catholic church insisting on the insertion, when the Filioque in Reformed theology [was not really needed, as pointed out] was a form of exaltation over a bishop (who's job is to keep things the same). But the question didn't ask about the Protestants perspective of the East, it asked how it affected their theology. It changed nothing of their theology at all since theirs was faith. –  Only he is good. Apr 2 at 11:25
    
@CharlesAlsobrook Theology by definition is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Historically the move was a move towards faith and away from selling indulgences. That faith I just explained for you. Therefore what you received is the Reformed Protestants theology. Neither did I give you commentary on influential Eastern theologians because they needed no defense. The Bishops job was to keep things the same. If you wanted you answer from a historical theologians perspective that should have been pointed out in your question. You see how it affected theology and the non-factor? –  Only he is good. Apr 2 at 11:40
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.