In Defence Of The Filioque Clause

This article seeks to defend the Latin Church’s use of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. To do so, it will first briefly restate and explain classical Trinitarian theology, before setting out the Scriptural and dogmatic warrant for the clause in the Creed.

Background: The Filioque Controversy

At the heart of this great controversy was whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son. Its name finds its beginning in the portion of the Latin version of the Nicene Creed regarding the Holy Spirit:

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem,
qui ex Patre Filióque procédit,
qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur,
qui locútus est per prophétas.

In English, the equivalent portion reads:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

The Filioque clause, added to the Nicene Creed by the Latin Church, was the Church’s confession that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone, but from both the Father and the Son. However, the Eastern Church rejected the clause, seeking instead to maintain the Father’s primacy in the Godhead as the sole relative origin of the Holy Spirit. This was the result of the great schism between Eastern and Western Christianity, where the Eastern Church forever split with the West.

At the crux of the whole controversy lay the question: Does the Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? Or, put in another way, Does the Father spirate the Spirit alone, or together with the Son?

Restatement of classical Trinitarian theology

Christianity is fiercely monotheistic, confessing that there is only one God, as taught by the Scriptures. However, at the same time, Scripture also identifies three distincts who are all identified as God. These three distincts are called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are the one and same God, but they are not each other.

This mystery has led the Church to confess that God is one in essence and three in persons. Over time, it has developed many creeds to safeguard these two precious truths.

The meaning of “essence” in God

Put simply, the essence of an object refers to what the object is. It is a philosophical term that refers to the “what-ness” of an object. For example, the essence of a dog is its caninity, the essence of a cat is felinity and the essence of a man is humanity. In the same language therefore, the essence of God is divinity. To be divine is to be God.

Although there is neither scope nor place to elaborate on the doctrine of divine simplicity, we note for present purposes that God is His essence and this essence is both simple (non-composite) and indivisible. Classical Trinitarian theology has confessed that God is one in essence and if one were to deny this, then one would slip into the heresy of tritheism, or the belief in three gods; there is only one God.

The meaning of “person” in God

Strictly speaking, the technical term for “person” is hypostasis. However, for the purposes of this article, the word “person” will suffice. While the theological and doctrinal implications on what a divine person is are many and multi-faceted, we limit the definition to say that a “person” in the sense of God refers to any one of the distincts who are identified as God. It is a term that we use to indicate distinction from the others, given that the Scriptures have informed us that the one called the Father is not the one called the Son and vice versa.

Classical Trinitarian theology confesses that God is three in person. If one were to deny this, then one would slip into the heresy of modalism, which teaches that the three distincts are actually one person in three forms; there are three persons who are possess the divine essence and are called God. However, given that the divine essence is not composite, God is therefore not composite and as such, each divine person does not hold one-thirds of the divine essence. Rather, each divine person holds the divine essence in its complete entirety and fullness. The person called the Father is fully and entirely God in Himself, the person called the Son is fully and entirely God in Himself and the person called the Holy Spirit is fully and entirely God in Himself.

Given that each person holds the very same divine essence (since there is only one) in Himself, there is virtually nothing to distinguish the three of them. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have the same one single essence, since they are all the one and same God. As such, there is nothing from the essence that can differentiate them from each other.

Relations between the persons that indicate distinction

I borrow an analogy which I read before, bearing in mind that no analogy can truly map God in His inner being:¹ Imagine three chairs side by side in a row. They are of the exact same brand, model, colour, shape, mass etc. Visibly, they are exactly the same and indistinguishable. The only way one can identify any one particular chair is by the positions they are in. The left, centre or right chairs. However, positional language is relational language; the left chair is left only from the centre and right, the right chair is right only from centre and left and etc. In the same way, since the one called the Father, the one called the Son and the one called the Holy Spirit are indistinguishable from each other in terms of their essence, we use relational language to distinguish one person from the other two.

Classical Trinitarian theology describes these relations between the divine persons as divine processions. By this, we mean that when we are able to determine which one proceeds from the other, we are will be able to tell the two apart given their relation. We take the example of the Father and the Son. The Father is the Father only by virtue of His relation with the Son and the Son the Son only by virtue of His relation with the Father.

As such, classical Trinitarian theology says that because the Son is from the Father, we are therefore able to tell the Father and Son apart, given that only one comes from the other and not the other way around. They are put on opposite ends of a relation, namely the Father-Son relation; the Father is the Father because He proceeds from no one, and the Son is the Son because He proceeds from the Father. This means that the names “Father” and “Son” were not arbitrarily chosen names that two indistinguishable persons gave to themselves.

Eternal generation and procession

To say that the Son is the Son because He proceeds from the Father and that the Father is the Father because He proceeds from no one and has the Son proceed from Him is to say that the names “Father” and “Son” truly reflect them vis-à-vis their relation with each other. Classical Trinitarian theology has termed this unique procession of the Son from the Father alone eternal generation. It is crucial to note that this does not indicate an ontological origin (origin in terms of essence), but a relative origin that happened in eternity and has no beginning nor end.

In the same way, to which the similar logic applies, the Holy Spirit is only the Holy Spirit by virtue of His relation to the other two persons. Looking at the example of the Father and Holy Spirit, classical Trinitarian theology says that because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we therefore put them on opposite ends of a relation, namely the Father-Spirit relation. We are now able to tell the Father and Spirit apart because the Spirit comes from the Father and not the other way around. Classical Trinitarian theology has termed this procession of the Spirit from the Father eternal procession, which again does not indicate an ontological origin, but an eternal relative one.

The relation between the Son and the Spirit is the issue which this article seeks to address in substance and to which our attention now turns.

Warrants for the Filioque clause

We turn now to the Scriptural and dogmatic warrants for the use of the Filioque clause.

Scriptural warrant for the Filioque clause

The biblical warrant for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father is normally found in Scripture passages that call Him the Spirit of God (Gen 1:2; Exo 31:3; 2 Chr 15:1; Job 33:4; Isa 11:2; Mat 3:16; 1 Cor 2:11), the Spirit of the Father (Mat 10:20) or the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). That much is undisputed.

However, just as the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, there is equal biblical warrant in like manner to say that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son as well.

In John 14:15-17:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

The Son calling the Spirit the Spirit of truth comes off the back of Him declaring Himself to be the way, the truth and the life, identifying the Spirit as His.

In Romans 8:9:

But you are not of the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ in the same breath as He is called the Spirit of God.

In Philippians 1:19:

For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ ...

In 1 Peter 1:11:

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Therefore, if the biblical warrant for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father is based on the Bible calling Him the Spirit of God, then there is ample biblical warrant for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son as well, since the Bible in no uncertain terms calls Him the Spirit of Christ as well.

Dogmatic warrant for the Filioque clause

The dogmatic basis for the use of the Filioque clause lies in the theological issue of whether the Spirit must necessarily proceed from the Son. The argument is that He must.

Having already established that the Son and the Spirit possess the very one and same essence because they are both the very one and same God, they are indistinguishable from each other apart from their relation with each other. Given that, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then we fail to predicate a relation between the Son and Spirit. Since these relational distinctions prevent us from falling into modalism, to not have a relation between Son and Spirit would mean that there is nothing preventing the conclusion that Son and Spirit are the same person in different modes.

Since Scripture clearly teaches that the Son and Spirit are truly and really distinct despite holding the very one and same essence, Scripture mandates a dogmatic that necessarily distinguishes them, and the only way to do so by necessity is to predicate a relation between them. This relation we predicate is the spirator-proceeder relation, whereby the Son spirates the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds from the Son. As such, just as we are able to distinguish Father and Spirit through this relation, so also are we able to distinguish Son and Spirit through the same.

Granted, that calling the procession of the Son “eternal generation” and that of the Spirit “eternal spiration” may give rise to a distinction, whereby we say the Son is the one who is generated from the Father alone and the Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father alone, this manner of predication does not necessarily preclude modalism. By Scripture, we need a doctrine that in no uncertain terms sets the Son apart from the Spirit in distinction. The argument is that the only way to do so is to relativise the Spirit against the Son in the spirator-proceeder relation, by confessing that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well.

Therefore, since dogmatics require us to confess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, there is a dogmatic warrant for the Filioque clause.

Conclusion

In sum, relations indicate distinctions and the Church’s classical Trinitarian metaphysics must therefore have relations between the three persons to necessarily distinguish them. Scripture and doctrine both demand that the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, and as such, the Filioque clause is therefore warranted and ought to be duly defended.

Notes

[1] Tony Arsenal, “The Folly of Denying Eternal Generation or Eternal Procession”, source: https://reformedarsenal.com/the-folly-of-denying-eternal-generation-or-eternal-procession (accessed 20 July 2019).