thoughts and ruminations while in exile (1 Pet. 2:11)

Introduction

While some may be led to think that the Protestant Reformation was the greatest rupture of the church, centuries preceding this event was the Great Schism of 1054. To be sure, there were a series of events that led to the break between East and West,[1] but it is generally agreed upon that the chief issue was that of the filioque clause.[2] The filioque clause refers to the words “and the Son,” which were added to the Latin version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.[3] For years, when the universal church recited the latter portion of the Nicene Creed they would confess, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” While the details are somewhat intricate, the Western church began to confess that the Holy Spirit not only proceeded from the Father, but also from the Son.

The fact that such an addition to the Creed could cause a division in the church which still exists to this day leads many to think this is nothing more than theological hairsplitting.[4] In its historical setting, however, this discussion was not relegated to the academic community. For the average Christian, this was a matter of salvation. More than that, the debate raged over whether or not the clause was biblical.[5] To state the matter briefly, those who affirm the filioque (usually Catholics and Protestants[6]) assert that to deny the filioque calls the deity of the Son into question.

The crux of the issue is whether or not the Son is also the source of the Holy Spirit. Pugliese summarizes the point nicely: “ . . . if the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the sole person from whom the Holy Spirit comes into possession of the divine essence, then the Son is not fully equal with the Father.”[7] Those who do not affirm the filioque (usually Eastern Christians[8]) do so because they believe the clause calls into question the unique hypostatic properties of the Father. While each position presents a strong case, I will argue for the filioque, believing the position ultimately has more explanatory power.

Historical Overview
Given the nature of the early Christological debates and the different heresies floating around, the church convened in council to discuss the issues. In order to combat false teachings, along with professing to the world what the church believes, the first ecumenical council summarized their beliefs in the Nicene Creed (325). What many Christians know as the Nicene Creed today, however, is actually the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).[9] It is this original creed that did not contain the filioque. While few Western bishops were present at this council,[10] the Western church nonetheless recognized the importance of the Nicene Creed, though they appeared to have a certain affinity for the Apostles’ Creed.[11] Nevertheless, though the exact details remain elusive, it appears that the filioque clause began to attach itself to the Creed in liturgies in Spain sometime during the latter portion of the fifth and sixth centuries.[12]

The impulse for the Western church to solidify the filioque was to combat the spread of Arianism. Thus, the clause was formally adopted into the Creed at the local Council of Toledo (589).[13] While the Council of Toledo may have made the filioque official in documents, Latin fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son by the fourth century. Between the fifth through the eighth centuries this thought continued to develop, and by the end of the eighth century the filioque was added in the minds of many. The first place of significance where the clause was added was “the court of the Emperor Charlemagne at Aachen.”[14]
The Eastern fathers did not fail to notice this Latin tendency. Bray notes that in the seventh century Maximus the Confessor was aware of the double procession theology of the Latin fathers, and was frankly bewildered by the thought. Rather than oppose the West, however, Maximus simply assumed the problem was with the Latin language. John of Damascus, on the other hand, did not remain as quiet as Maximus did. He opposed the idea of the filioque without realizing that the clause had already been inserted into the Creed.[15]

It was not until the time of Charlemagne that tensions began to rise. When Charlemagne was proclaimed Roman Emperor on Christmas day in the year 800, it caused a political stir. This was due to the fact that the Byzantines viewed his enthronement as Emperor as a usurpation of authority. Since Charlemagne knew the Greeks were not too happy with his new position, he decided to act first against his opponents. Charlemagne and his cohorts responded with two bold moves: 1) they said the Pope could appoint a new Roman Emperor at his discretion, and 2) that the Eastern Emperor had been removed because of heresy. While it is not known for sure exactly what this heresy was, Bray suggests Charlemagne communicated to the Pope that the Eastern Church had deleted the filioque clause.[16]

Despite all of the political turmoil, the filioque clause was still not recited by all in the West. Charlemagne officially brought the issue up at the Council of Aixla-Chapelle (809). While the Council decided in favor of the clause, it appears that Charlemagne still needed Pope Leo III’s approval.[17] There may have been a possibility that Pope Leo III was upset with Charlemagne since the filioque had already provoked an uprising between Frankish and Greek monks.[18] Still, the Council of Aixla-Chappelle proved beneficial for Charlemagne. Pope Leo III approved the filioque, while at the same time opposing its insertion into the Nicene Creed.[19] Instead, he had both the Latin and Greek versions of the Creed inscribed in St. Peter’s basilica.[20] This action infuriated the East and was the leading impetus in the filioque controversy.[21]
Despite all of the controversy that was brewing, at this point in history the East and the West did not view their differences as irreconcilable.[22] With the rise of the interest in pneumatology in the ninth century, however, this was all about to change.[23] The chief exponent in the ninth century denying the filioque clause was Photius, patriarch of Constantinople.[24] Indeed, it was in response to his “violent assault” on the filioque that caused the West to respond once and for all.[25]

At this point, one cannot help but notice how the theological controversy takes shape in the midst of political upheaval. This thought is taken into account by both Schaff and Ritschl. Schaff, for instance, notes, “The coincidence of the triumph of the Filioque in the West with the founding of the new Roman Empire is significant.”[26] In addition to this, Ritschl says, “It is difficult throughout the history of the controversy to draw dividing lines between theological and political thoughts and sentiments.”[27] While one cannot make the case that the controversy was solely political, it seems reasonable to conclude that political jockeying played a part in this scenario.[28] In fact, the political distress may have contributed to the lackluster engagement with the Scriptural text. Thus, Olson and Hall comment, “Political tensions between leaders of the Latin West and Greek East often overshadowed theological reflection and creativity.”[29] The center of the controversy, however, lies in the West’s decision to unilaterally insert the clause into the Creed. Apparently, exactly when the filioque was officially adopted is disputed. Bray says it was “adopted” in 1014.[30] Vischer simply says the clause was officially added in the eleventh century.[31] Further, Letham asserts that the claim was not inserted into the Creed until 1215 under Pope Benedict VIII.[32] Regardless of when it happened, in retrospect, I think one can say this was a poor decision by the West. As the East has argued, there should have been an ecumenical council in order to change the Creed.

The Eastern View
As Donald Fairburn acknowledges, every Christian owes a debt of gratitude to the Eastern Church. When it comes to the areas of Trinitarian theology and Christology, the Eastern fathers have helped the church tremendously.[33] When considering the doctrine of God, however, the differences between East and West are significantly pronounced.[34] This difference is seen clearly in the divergent ways of understanding the Trinity. For starters, since the time of Augustine, the West has strongly emphasized the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[35] While the East would certainly want to affirm this truth, they have also had a strong desire to emphasize the uniqueness of the Father.[36] So much so, that the Eastern Church refers to the Father as “the fountainhead of the deity.”[37] At the popular level, it is often suggested that the East emphasizes the “Threeness,” while the West emphasizes the “Oneness.”[38]

It is the unique role which the Eastern Church ascribes to the Father that will not allow it to accept the filioque. Their contention is as follows: It is a part of the Father’s “hypostatic property” to “bring forth” the other two Persons of the Trinity. Within the Godhead, there are “common” and “shared” properties.[39] It is a “common property” of the Father to derive his being from himself. The East asserts, however, that it is not a “common property” of the Son or the Spirit to derive their being from themselves.[40] Thus, in the minds of the Eastern theologians, the Spirit cannot proceed from the Son because it is not a “common property” of the Son to have the Spirit proceed from him. The Father has not willed to confer this “common property” on the Son. To sum up, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, this would mean that there are two sources or principles in the Trinity.[41] For the East, therefore, if there are two principles in the Godhead, then the monarchy of the Father is called into question. Furthermore, the characteristic of begetting is the sole prerogative of the Father. To deny this, is to confuse the Persons of the Trinity.[42]

Exegetical Support
The Eastern Church appeals to John 15:26 in support of its denial of the filioque. This verse is known as the locus classicus among theologians and NT exegetes.[43] In this verse Jesus says, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (ESV). Admittedly, this verse explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. It must also be stated, moreover, that the text does not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.[44] Timothy Ware says of this verse, “Christ sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father: so the Bible teaches, and so Orthodoxy believes. What Orthodoxy does not teach, and what the Bible does not actually say, is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.”[45] The East appears to be satisfied with its position for three reasons: 1) John 15:26 specifically says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, 2) the mutually opposing relations of the Persons necessitates that the Spirit only proceed from the Father, and 3) there has not been an ecumenical council to decide the issue once and for all.

The Western View
Western Trinitarian thought began to develop with Augustine’s work De Trinitate.[46] Unlike the East, Augustine located the unity of God in God’s essence. As Letham notes, “[Augustine] makes the divine essence, not the person of the Father, the foundation for his doctrine of the Trinity.”[47] In reality, this is where the center of the controversy lies. As Fairburn puts it, “At stake is the question of whether essence/nature or person is the fundamental constituent of God’s existence.”[48] While in their essence the three Persons of the Trinity are equally God, the West would also affirm that “God exists only as three eternal persons . . .”[49] The issue, therefore, should not come down to whether or not the West emphasizes the essence over the persons. The West is justified in saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in light of the perichoretic union of the Persons of the Trinity. The question is whether or not the Bible teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Exegetical Support
While there is no biblical text that explicitly teaches the double procession of the Spirit, it can be reasonably deduced from the whole of Scripture.[50] For example, the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as the “Spirit of Christ,” and the “Spirit of the Son” (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19; I Pet. 1:11). Galatians 4:6 says, “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” As Pugliese says of this verse, “There seems more to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit than a mutual procession from the Father.”[51] This verse appears to teach that both the Father and the Son are at work in sending the Spirit. Pugliese continues: “The fact that the Spirit is fully the Spirit of the Son as much as the Spirit of the Father shows how the Trinity is a tight unity.”[52]

Aside from these verses, John’s gospel also plays a part. In John 16:7, for instance, Jesus says, “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” (ESV, emphasis mine). Even in John 15:26, the text to which the Eastern Church points, Jesus says he will send the Holy Spirit to us from the Father. Furthermore, in John 20:22, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on his disciples. Thus, whereas the East says the Holy Spirit derives his deity solely from the Father, the West would assert that “when the Father, through generation . . . puts the Son in possession of the divine nature, He also communicates to the Son the ability to spirate or breathe the Holy Spirit.”[53]

Resolution
The differences between East and West on this issue are important and should not be downplayed. Both positions have their strong points, and each side can learn from the other. The West does need to be mindful of modalism and the East needs to be mindful of tritheism and subordinationism.[54] Further, the East’s concern that the West not reduce God to an essence is legitimate. As Fairburn explains, there is “no entity called the essence of God [that] exists.”[55] Bray also notes that Western Christians must assure the East that they worship a personal God, not a thing.[56]

In trying to resolve this conflict, Letham also proposes a way forward. He suggests that the East must recognize the West’s intention in adding the clause. In reality, it was done in support of truths the East fully accepts—“the consubstantial unity of the Trinity, the deity of the Son, and the intimacy between the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In addition to this, the West must recognize that Augustine’s “teaching that the Father and the Son are the common cause of the eternal being of the Holy Spirit unintentionally compromises the monarchy of the Father in the eyes of advocates of the Cappadocian paradigm.”[57] Each side must recognize the concerns of the other. Ultimately, while the filioque clause is biblical, the West was wrong in inserting the clause without the input of the East.

Conclusion
The Trinitarian revival that began with Karl Barth brought the filioque clause back into discussion.[58] It is certainly a discussion that is worth having given the influence it can have on church life. At its core, the doctrine ensures that one’s pneumatology is Christological. That is to say, one cannot separate the Person of the Holy Spirit from the Person of Christ. Indeed, “the Holy Spirit is in all things inseparable from the Father and the Son.”[59] When one separates the work of the Holy Spirit from the Person of Christ, all things become permissible.[60] Thus, those Christian traditions that have failed to take this doctrine seriously must begin to engage in this discussion.[61]

Having looked at the historical situation, we have seen how the filioque controversy arose. While it began somewhat slowly and took years before it generated much discussion, once it came to the forefront, the vitriol began to be launched from Rome to Constantinople. To be sure, the political scene at the time contributed to the hectic nature of the debate. From a Scriptural standpoint, Augustine’s exegesis of the texts played a large role in forming Western Trinitarianism. On the other side, Photius captivated the Eastern audience. Since that time the debate has continued to rage. In light of the fact that Jesus prayed for his church to be unified (Jn. 17:21) may the Lord be pleased to bring the church to a resolution quickly.


Works Cited
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of English Dominican Province.
(Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981).
Gerald Bray, “The Filioque Clause in History and Theology,” Tyndale Bulletin 34
(1983): 91-144.
Donald Fairburn. Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes. (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2002).
Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall. The Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
L. Charles Jackson. Faith of our Fathers: A Study of the Nicene Creed. (Moscow:
Canon Press, 2007).
Robert Letham. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
(Philipsburg: P&R, 2004).
John McManners, Ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1990).
Nick Needham, “The Filioque Clause: East or West?” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical
Theology 15 (1997): 142-162.
Marc A. Pugliese, “How Important is the Filioque for Reformed Orthodoxy?”
Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 159-177.
Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Vol. IV Mediaeval Christianity. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950).
Andreas Kostenberger and Scott R. Swain. Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity in John’s
Gospel. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008).
Lukas Vischer, Ed. Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the
Filioque Controversy. (London: SPCK, 1981).
Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church. New Edition. (London: Penguin Books, 1997).
David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and The Nicene Dogma,” Pro Ecclesia 3:2 (1994):
152-164.
Amos Yong, “Discerning the Spirit,” The Christian Century 123:5 (2006): 31.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Gerald Bray. “The Filioque Clause in History and Theology,” Tyndale Bullentin 34 (1983): 91-144. See especially p. 119 ; See “Eastern Christendom” by Kallistos Ware in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Ed. John McManners, (New York: Oxford University Press), 145-147.
[2] Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God, quoted in Bray. (London, 1975), 71-72; Philip Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Vol. IV Mediaeval Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 476; Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church. New Edition. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 44, 50-51. Ware asserts that the Great Schism came down to two issues: Papal claims and the filioque.
[3] Gerald Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 91.
[4] Marc A. Pugliese. “How Important is the Filioque for Reformed Orthodoxy?” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 159-177. Ware suggests Orthodox Christians usually do not perceive the importance of the doctrine as well. See The Orthodox Church, 210.
[5] Robert Letham. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004), 203.
[6] Not all Protestants affirm the filioque. For a contemporary example see Nick Needham. “The Filioque Clause: East or West?” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 15 (1997): 142-162. Needham is a Baptist who does not affirm the filioque.

[7] Marc A. Pugliese. “How Important is the Filioque?” 162.
[8] Eastern Christians would not affirm the filioque because it has not been affirmed by an ecumenical council. Indeed, six of the seven ecumenical councils repudiated the filioque clause. See Markos A. Orphonas, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit According to Certain Later Greek Fathers,” in Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy. Ed, Lukas Vischer. (London: SPCK, 1981), 28. As the Orthodox Church sees it, a doctrinal statement cannot be altered by the sole authority of the Bishop of Rome, but rather by a synod of Bishops representing the whole church. For a simple explanation on why the Eastern Church will not embrace the filioque, see L Charles Jackson. Faith of our Fathers: A Study of the Nicene Creed. (Moscow: Canon Press, 2007), 91.
[9] Lukas Vischer, Ed. Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 4.

[10] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 118; Bray notes, “The great Christological controversies were fought by Greeks in the East with no significant Western participation until 430, the year of Augustine’s death . . .” in “The Filioque Clause,” 114.
[11] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 4-5. To underscore the primacy of the Nicene Creed the Council of Ephesus (431) asserted that no other creed but the Nicene should be recited, ibid.
[12] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 91; Lethem, The Holy Trinity, 202.
[13] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 202. Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 118 notes that on July 21, 447 Pope Leo wrote to Turibius, bishop of Asturcia, affirming the filioque for the purpose of combating the modalistic tendencies of the “Priscilliantists and the Arianism of the Visigoths.”
[14] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 5.
[15] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 120.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 482.
[18] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 121.
[19] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 482; Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 121; Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 5-6.

[20] Schaff, ibid; Bray, ibid.
[21] Bray says Eastern theologians were able to rally support against the West by stressing that the controversy was one of papal supremacy., ibid, 121.
[22] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 12.

[23] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 122. Bray links his discussion on the rise of interest in pneumatology to Gottschalk and Ratramnus.
[24] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 205.
[25] Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 483.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Dietrich Ritschl, “Historical Development and Implications of the Filioque Controversy,” in Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 47. Ed, Vischer
[28] Ibid, 53. Ritschl agrees that the controversy was not entirely political.
[29] Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall. The Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 54.
[30] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 91;
[31] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 5.

[32] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 202.
[33] Donald Fairburn. Eastern Orthodoxy through Western Eyes. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 51.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 204. Letham asserts, “Augustine has exerted an overpowering influence in the Western church up to the present day.”
[36] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 11.
[37] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 217; Fairburn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 56; Letham, The Holy Trinity, 210; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 485.
[38] Ware, Ibid. Ware is not agreeing with this assessment, but rather pointing out what is generally said.
[39] What the Persons do not share in common are called, “mutually opposed relations.” See Pugliese, “How Important is the Filioque,” 171.
[40] Fairburn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 56, notes that the East seeks to locate the unity of God, “not in an essence that the three persons share, but in the person of the Father. The Father is God, and the Son and Spirit are also God mainly by virtue of their relationship to the Father, not primarily because they have the same attriubutes as the Father (emphasis mine).
[41] Vischer, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, 12-13.
[42] Pugliese, “How Important is the Filioque?” 162.
[43] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 203.
[44] As Pugliese points out, “the Scripture never openly and overtly discusses the eternal relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in the ontological or immanent Trinity. Pugliese, “How Important is the Filioque,” 168.
[45] Ware, The Orthodox Church, 212.
[46] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 114.
[47] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 204-205.
[48] Fairburn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 58.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of English Dominican Province. (Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981), Q. 32, Art. 2, Pt. 1. On the importance of making judgments on what Scripture teaches, see David S. Yeago, “The New Testament and The Nicene Dogma,” Pro Ecclesia 3:2 (1994): 152-164, esp. 159.
[51] Pugliese, “How Important is the Filioque?,” 167.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid, 173.
[54] Fairburn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 58-59; Ware, The Orthodox Church, 213-217.
[55] Fairburn, Eastern Orthodoxy, 58.
[56] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 112.
[57] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 213.
[58] Bray, “The Filioque Clause,” 96.
[59] Letham, The Holy Trinity, 210.

[60] For instance, because Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong does not link the work of the Spirit to the work of Christ, he teaches the Holy Spirit works through non-Christian religions. To see a sharp rebuke to his position see, Andreas Kostenberger and Scott R. Swain. Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity in John’s Gospel. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 162-163.
[61] Amos Yong. “Discerning the Spirit,” The Christian Century 123:5 (2006): 31. Yong notes that because Pentecostals have a “Spirit-centered theology” they “have been less interested in historic doctrines like the filioque.”