Athanasian Creed and consequence of denying filioque

[Afterthought]

Thank you again! I think I'm beginning to understand this now. I'll try to explain it to see if I do understand.

Western (and biblical) theology begins with the unity of the Godhead. We try to figure out how one can be three. We distinguish the three in the Godhead by personal properties. Each Person must have a unique personal property in order to preserve His equality with the other Persons because the properties are "divinely proper," namely, it is a property of a divine Person to have a unique personal property; if they did not have a unique personal property, then there would be no way to distinguish the Persons, which means we (1) defeat our purpose of finding how one can be three and (2) need to call the Father, Son, and/or Spirit something else besides God due to there being less than three Persons in the Trinity if the personal properties are not unique; and if one Person had a unique property while the others didn't, that one Person would be superior because He would have a unique personal property while the others did not have a unique personal property but the same property as each other (not that one would be able to distinguish the others without unique properties anyway).

These personal properties consist in the communication of the Godhead between the Persons. The Father does not have the Godhead communicated to Him. The Son has the Godhead communicated to Him from the Father, and the Spirit has the Godhead communicated to Him from the Father and the Son. We call the communication of the Godhead from the Father to one Person (the Son) begetting and the communication of the Godhead from the Father and the Son to another Person (the Spirit) procession.

If we denied the filioque, the Son would no longer communicate the Godhead to the Spirit, and the Father would be communicating the Godhead to two Persons. That means the Son and the Spirit no longer have unique personal properties; they then have the same personal property: having the Godhead communicated to them from the Father, which we defined earlier as begetting. But each personal property must be unique in order for each Person's equality to be preserved. Because the Son no longer has a unique personal property, He is no longer equal with the Father. The Spirit too is no longer equal with the Father, but we're interested in the Son becoming inferior because that's the same claim as Arianism.

If we affirm the filioque, each Person has a unique property. The Son is equal with the Father, because His property is unique. The Spirit is equal with the other two Persons, not because He has the Godhead communicated from two Persons, but because the Spirit has the unique property of having the Godhead communicated from two Persons. So each Person is then equal with the other due to them all having unique properties. The equality between the Son and Father isn't so much about both being able to communicate the Godhead to another Person but about them both having unique personal properties.


Incidentally, the nullification you gave to my objection about the Spirit is also an excellent theological argument for the filioque if one can get the person one is arguing with to start with unity.

Regarding the last point of the creed -- I think it is correct to take the judgment as incorporating the whole system of doctrine rather than any one point of it. Trinitarian faith is like a seed which incorporates all the elements of life within itself but requires a process of development to bring them forth.

So to clarify, if someone denied, say, line 31, they would not be considered a heretic? Or are you referring to the fact that all true Christians have a Trinitarian faith though it takes time for them to draw out what that all means, and so just because they do not understand or know something about the Trinity, they are not heretics unless/until they end up denying a point of the Trinity (like the filioque)?

 

[MW]

I'll try to explain it to see if I do understand (and I hope that I'm not completely misunderstanding what you said or merely thinking in circles and repeating what I've already incorrectly thought ).

From my understanding your explanation demonstrates you have grasped the main points of concern from the western theological perspective.

So to clarify, if someone denied, say, line 31, they would not be considered a heretic? Or are you referring to the fact that all true Christians have a Trinitarian faith though it takes time for them to draw out what that all means, and so just because they do not understand or know something about the Trinity, they are not heretics unless/until they end up denying a point of the Trinity (like the filioque)?

Everyone begins his life of discipleship by being baptised into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He is at least in principle subject to the Trinity. This devotion is like a seed. It contains the whole doctrine of the Trinity within it. As one grows and develops his understanding will grow and develop. He might not understand all the implications which took some seven centuries for the church to articulate but he will at least have the principles necessary for understanding them. What matters is the submission of the individual to the Trinitarian faith.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks for all your help! Though it's been a difficult topic, it's been a most enjoyable conversation! This topic reminds me how AWE-some God is.