Filioque, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism

[Unoriginalname]

I know a few weeks ago I asked for prayer over a friend converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Today we were chatting and he sent me a link to this blog post by a convert from Protestantism to Eastern Orthodoxy. I really do not know a ton about the theological implications of the filioque clause. I am curious why we use it in Protestantism; would we say the original Nicene Creed was defective or incomplete without it? What are the biblical arguments for it?

 

[RamistThomist]

Wow. WHere to start? Perry's initial arguments look impressive, but they ultimately don't deliver (I've read every article on that website four or five times each over the past five years). Admittedly, recent Protestantism has done a terrible job in expounding and defending the Filioque. The filioque is such a wide topic that it's hard ot know where to start aside from specifics.

The original creed wasn't defective, but it didn't say much on the relation between Son and Spirit. And aside from appeals to perichoresis, Orthodox can't tell you much on this point. I would offer reflection around the following points:

1) Don't try to argue that the Son sending the Spirit is the same as the Son ontologically generating the Spirit. That may be so but those discussions never go anywhere.
2) Point to numerous scholia by Western fathers who are acknowledged as saints by EO where they argue for the Filioque.

Keep the Filioque

 

[Claudiu]

Wow. WHere to start? Perry's initial arguments look impressive, but they ultimately don't deliver (I've read every article on that website four or five times each over the past five years). Admittedly, recent Protestantism has done a terrible job in expounding and defending the Filioque. The filioque is such a wide topic that it's hard ot know where to start aside from specifics.

The original creed wasn't defective, but it didn't say much on the relation between Son and Spirit. And aside from appeals to perichoresis, Orthodox can't tell you much on this point. I would offer reflection around the following points:

1) Don't try to argue that the Son sending the Spirit is the same as the Son ontologically generating the Spirit. That may be so but those discussions never go anywhere.
2) Point to numerous scholia by Western fathers who are acknowledged as saints by EO where they argue for the Filioque.

Keep the Filioque

To their credit, I think they have said more on that point.

 

[py3ak]

John Owen points out that if the designation "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of the Father" means that the Spirit personally proceeds from God the Father, then the designation "Spirit of Christ" or "Spirit of the Son" means that the Spirit personally proceeds from God the Son. See Works, v.3, pp.83ff.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wow. WHere to start? Perry's initial arguments look impressive, but they ultimately don't deliver (I've read every article on that website four or five times each over the past five years). Admittedly, recent Protestantism has done a terrible job in expounding and defending the Filioque. The filioque is such a wide topic that it's hard ot know where to start aside from specifics.

The original creed wasn't defective, but it didn't say much on the relation between Son and Spirit. And aside from appeals to perichoresis, Orthodox can't tell you much on this point. I would offer reflection around the following points:

1) Don't try to argue that the Son sending the Spirit is the same as the Son ontologically generating the Spirit. That may be so but those discussions never go anywhere.
2) Point to numerous scholia by Western fathers who are acknowledged as saints by EO where they argue for the Filioque.

Keep the Filioque

To their credit, I think they have said more on that point.

Kind of. I was drawing on the work of EO scholar Aristideis Papadakis and David Bradshaw, both of whom confess that the distinction between the Spirit existing from the Son and having existence from the Son is probably too fine a distinction and not really clear.