The Filioque and the Scriptures

                                                                    I. Introduction: 

Of all the doctrines of Christianity, the doctrines of the Trinity are likely the most complex. While we sometimes think of theology as being about justification, baptism, the Eucharist, church government, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit, evangelism, war, capital punishment, sexuality, creation, etc, all theology from a Biblical perspective, starts with God himself. We cannot define man Biblically unless we first know who God is and how we perceive God, will impact how we see all other areas in theology. 

As important as even the doctrine of salvation is, salvation itself is irrelevant unless when we know who it is that is saving us. At the heart of who God is, is the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the foundation for all other essential doctrines of the Christian faith. 

Indeed, the Trinity is so essential to the Christian faith, that six out of the seven ecumenical councils were about the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the early centuries. Most of the early heresies generally concerned a denial of either the Son or the Spirit as equally God as the Father. 

Saying the procession of the Spirit either from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son does not matter either way as neither affects humanity, is a dangerous position to take. For not only is the Spirit of God active in the life of the believer, but God's attributes should matter to us. If the theology of God does not matter, then why should the doctrines of salvation, the church, or creation? 

In the sixth century, though, a heresy was spreading throughout Spain. It asserted that the Spirit is not truly God. In response, Western Catholic Christians began to add the Latin phrase, ''Filioque,'' to the creed, a word which meant ''and the son.'' In the original Nicaeane Creed, the profession of faith was simply ''The Spirit proceeds from the Father.'' However, Western Christians were now emphasizing that the Spirit was equal to both the Father and Son, sharing complete eternal divinity as did each of their persons. 

The Filioque, though, had not been in the original creed. As divisions grew in the church in the second half of the first millennium since Christ, many Eastern theologians turned increasingly against the Filioque and saw it as heresy. To them, the Filioque took away the Father's monarch role within the Trinity and brought confusing divisions to the Trinity of the Godhead. In the events leading up to and following the so-called Great Schism of 1054, the Filioque was one of the most contentious issues of theological differences between Christians East and West (though certainly not the only one). 

For the record, Filioque is a Latin word for ''and the Son.'' When inserted into the Nicaeane Creed, Western Christians now areas that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. 

Some Orthodox Christians believe that by the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son, it confuses these two persons of the Trinity as one being the Father, takes away from the Father being the head of the Trinity, and implies the Holy Spirit to be an insubordinate child to both the Father and the Son. On the other hand, some Western Christians in the past thought that the Eastern Church by denying the Filioque, was denying the Holy Spirit as equal to both the Father and the Son. For Augustine of Hippo, specifically, if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, then this means that the Spirit is another Son as God the Son---a concept which he rejected. Both the Western and Eastern Christians had many philosophical reasons for disagreeing with each other on the terminology of proceeds, etc. 

In this post, however, I will not be setting out to whether or not the Filoque should be in the Nicene Creed, but rather, to discuss whether or not this doctrine is Biblical. In the following post after this one, I will be covering more of church history in relation to the topic. 

                                                                II. Double Procession? 

Theologically, it is often debated about whether or not the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, or also from the Son. John 15:26 explicitly says that the Spirit of God proceeds from the Father. However, never Scripture never uses the words, ''the Spirit proceeds from the Son.'' Some have concluded that either this means that either the Spirit does not proceed from the Son or that it cannot be proven from Scripture that He does. Nevertheless, if one is to draw such a conclusion on this reasoning, one must reject the Deity of Christ as certain Bible passages refer to Christ as human, while others refers to Him as Divine. The absence of using the phrase ''proceed from the Son'' in John 15: 26, does not mean that that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father. 

When we compare Scripture to Scripture, we see in the other places within the Bible that the Spirit of God, while His own unique person, does receive order from the Father, and at least to a certain extent, from the Son as well. Take Romans 8: 9-10, where the first verse refers to the Spirit of the Father, and the second verse, where it says that the Spirit is of the Son. In other words, while being fully and alone God, the Holy Spirit is eternally subordinate to both the Father and Son, without either the Father and Son being any more God than is the Spirit Himself. 

In John 15: 26, Jesus says that He will send us the Spirit of God from the Father. Some have interpreted this verse as supporting belief in the Spirit of God proceeding from both the Father and Son. However, for many Eastern Orthodox, the Spirit of God was only temporarily sent from the Son, and thus, does not eternally proceed from the Son as He does from the Father. However, this is refuted by Revelation 22: 1. 

Revelation 22: 1 provides a strong argument for the Spirit of God proceeding from both the Father and the Son. In the verse, it says that the river of God flows from the throne of God and the Lamb. In other words, the Holy Spirit flows (or proceeds) from both the Father and Son. We know that the River of God in Revelation 22: 1 refers to the Holy Spirit as when it speaks of the River of God as the Holy Spirit called the River of God called elsewhere in Scripture (John 4: 15). In John 4: 15, for instance, the woman at the well desires the water of life and John 14: 26 makes clear, that Jesus left the Holy Spirit to us, from the Father, for our behalf. The Spirit of God's identification as the water of life is further proven in John 7: 37-39, where Jesus explicitly refers to rivers of living water being the Holy Spirit (v. 39).

Indeed, Revelation 22: 1 bears witness that the the Spirit of God was not simply temporarily sent by the Son. Rather, He proceeds eternally from the Son just as the River of Life eternally proceeds from the Throne of God and the Lamb. In this passage, the Spirit of God is proceeding from the Lamb far after Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. 

Another reason to believe in the Filioque is that Scripture implies that the Spirit does receive a type of the order from the Son of God (Romans 8: 9, Galatians 4: 6, Philippians `1: 19). But all of the passages in Scripture concerning the Filioque, perhaps its strongest support is not Joh 14: 26 or John 15: 26, but Revelation 22: 1, which is quite clear, that the spirit of God proceeds from both the Father and the Son. 

                                                                 III. Conclusion

Much more could be said on this topic. This post is an oversimplification of the deep philosophy concerning the Trinity. I hope that I have provided basic Scriptural reasons for every Christian to embrace the Spirit's procession from the Son. 

Since Scripture teaches that the Spirit is sent from the Son and that the Spirit of God proceeds from the Throne of God and the Lamb of God, we must conclude that the Filioque is Biblical. Of course, whether or not it should be canonically in the creed and the complicated history of it in church history, is room for another post. 

Notes: