The Filioque Debate

Part of the Course Trinitarianism

[@traceyedson9652]

I respect your videos, which I’ve begun watching. I also enjoy your approach. I’m familiar with the material being a convert of 25+ years to Orthodoxy. The conclusions reached here - that scripture cannot resolve the issue and that both are valid - strike me as glib, which took me by surprise. I didn’t expect a conclusion, but it strikes me that one oughtn’t judge such great luminaries as St Mark of Ephesus or St Thomas Aquinas or St Gregory Palamas or St Anselm and many others as being incorrect, since they all seemed to think otherwise, albeit on different sides. In our day, the debate continues amongst great saints & theologians, and quite apart from “politics,” which can’t judge an issue. Considering the eternity of God, we’re just getting started at these wondrous mysteries of life & grace. It’s way too soon to reach either conclusion (lack of scriptural authority & validity of each belief), isn’t it?

[@kevinstorer1966]

Thanks so much for the good words. If I am understanding you correctly, I would say that I agree with you completely. I am certainly not in a place to say that either Aquinas (West) or, say, Zizioulas (East) are "incorrect"--this is why I don't want to give a quick Scriptural proof-text and pronounce the issue "solved!" I also want to affirm that this should not be a Church-dividing issue, which is why I am willing to see both Traditions as confessionally "correct" (therefore confessionally binding) and to learn from both. It seems this has been the path of many recent "Western" theologians (Barth, Jenson, Sonderegger, Pannenberg, etc.), and this approach has proven productive to the theological task. Please forgive me if I sound dismissive of any theologian you note above--each has formed my theological perspective and I am continually indebted to their insights. Thanks again for your appropriate comments--I wish you the best in your theological journey! ~Kevin

[@claudiozanella256]

There is no "filioque". The "Spirit of God" (aka Holy Spirit) is simply God (almighty) who is a spirit: "God is a spirit" (Jn. 4:24), not a third divine person. He only proceeds from the almighty God who is NOT a spirit, not taking actions personally (see the gospels). Thus the Spirit of God doesn't proceed from the Son. The "filioque" comes from a misunderstanding of the "Comforter chapter", in John's gospel. "Comforter" is just a GENERIC TERM, " *A* Comforter will be sent". That "Comforter" will then be specifically constituted by the Son ("I will come to you") and by the Father "the SPIRIT OF YOUR FATHER which speaks through you." The "Spirit of your Father" is the Father who is a spirit, i.e. God who is a spirit. i.e. the Holy Spirit. He is not a third divine person.

[@iwansaputra1890]

so the father is in heaven
jesus is the father become human
holly spirit is the father who is the spirit
keep sabeliansim to yourself

[@claudiozanella256]

@@iwansaputra1890
No, the Father is not in heaven. If He was there He would be the King of heaven, not the Son.

[@iwansaputra1890]

@@claudiozanella256 so whrn jesus teach his disciples lord's prayer. did jesus lie whrn he said our father who art in heaven?
keep the demonic sabelianisn to yourself

[@claudiozanella256]

@@iwansaputra1890
Jesus tells He sits next to the POWER of God, not next to God, this contradicts the verse quoted by you. Jesus will come with the holy angels to judge people, not with the Father. Thus, there are contradictions, In these cases logic can help. Jesus cannot be the King of heaven when the Father sits next to Him. The Father is in heaven only in the form of a spirit, i.e. He is absent. I am not sabellian.

[@iwansaputra1890]

@@claudiozanella256
so what logic when jesus said our father art in heaven if jesus is father himself?