Studying the filioque is like an eternal game of chutes and ladders. You think you're getting somewhere, only to land on a space that brings you all the way back to the beginning. Intellectually humbling to say the least!
Haven’t watched the video yet to hear the discussion, but I don’t get how this got to be such a divisive subject. The Bible says the Father sends the Holy Spirit. The Bible also says Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. I have a lot of theological confusion on other subjects, but this one seems so straightforward to me! I don’t get it. Will definitely have to watch this after work.
@@anne.ominousI’m Protestant but my understanding is that they would say that those are two different things and the relationship between The Son and the Holy Spirit are different from the other relationships. I probably didn’t explain that very well 😂
@Throwaway-jn1jm And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (Jn 17:3) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Cor 13:12) The substance of our life in Christ is knowing God. When we're with him, when we see him as he is, we'll be in a perfect, loving relationship with him, forever! The filioque doesn't save you or prevent you from salvation. But understanding it is part of understanding God. Understanding God is both our eternal life in the future and our born-again life now. It isn't about "oh no, we better not be wrong or something terrible will happen!" It isn't "Well if I have perfect theology I get a bigger prize later!" It's "We want to understand this about God because we love him!" The driving force behind theology is loving God. Not trying to be right, not trying to earn something, not trying to avoid something. Just getting to know Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit.
Hi Gavin. I’ve been researching the Church and all the different denominations and historical evolutions and everything for the past few months. Although I am very far from even an entry level theologian, I find myself clued up enough to explain the basics, but not clued up enough to actually agree or disagree 100% with any of them. I believe a lot of people are in my shoes. Protestants, who grew up protestant, never questioning what we believed in, and with youtube and the algorithm being so aggressive find ourselves practically lost. One can make a good argument supporting Orthodoxy. Another good argument can be made to support Catholicism. One can even make a good argument for Protestantism. Just as one can make good arguments, one can make bad ones used as ammunition to refute the other. Orthodoxy can say a lot of bad things about Protestantism. Visa Versa and the same is true with Catholicism. It has gotten to a point where I really have no idea what to believe in anymore. There are so many people saying so many things. I find myself cringing at modern progressive churches, but also feeling heavily uneasy when it comes to icons, Mary and theological differences like salvation mechanisms and Theosis. It all just feels so complicated. Is salvation supposed to be so hard to understand? Is Church so difficult to get right? Is it enough to live a simple life, love Jesus, love people, fear God, read His word and die to myself daily? I feel let down. Not necessarily by Protestantism, but by everyone advocating any doctrine online. They slander each other and make offensive memes. Do they understand what it feels like, scrolling at the end of the day, and seeing a meme that attacks and, for a lack of a better phrase, takes a dump on the very thing you hold near and dear to your heart? I think there are Catholics and Orthodox(s) that also have experienced this. How can we use the Word thats described as a sword so violently against each other? Now I know and I’m sure as I’m sure Jesus rose from the grave that there are going to be people commenting on this, trying to advocate their Church. And how can I blame them? They are doing what they think is right. This is a deep, deep hole. And I find myself without light, help or genuine kindness from anyone. Where does one start to rebuild your faith when it has been SMASHED by those entrusted, or at least those who claim it to be entrusted to. - Sincerely, a guy just trying to die enough.
I was in a similar position a year or so ago, and it's not fun. But it's also not forever. Just pray about it, trust God to lead you in your studies, and be honest with yourself about how you feel as you keep looking. There's light at the end of the tunnel - EVERY church agrees that Jesus died so we could live. Keep running your race :) But the meme thing, oh my gosh thank you. One of my Catholic friends used to read and make these very mean jokes about other denominations and non Christians, and I knew he would never say anything nasty to those people but it made me SO uncomfortable. And it definitely hurt my feelings when Protestants were in the cross hairs lol
Ek resoneer met hierdie - neem aan jy is Afrikaans agv jou naam. Sit in dieselfde posisie, Suid-Afrika is maar sterk protestant, gereformeerd en in my kringe vreeslik charismaties - iets wat ek al hoe verder vanaf weg beweeg. Dis moeilik om die waarheid tussen dit alles te vind en ek sit tans met meer vrae as antwoorde, jy is nie alleen nie.
I love your seeking heart! I think you already have more figured out than you know. You know there are extraneous practices that make you feel very uncomfortable. Listen to your spirit on this. You know that cruelty & shaming is damaging. It’s appropriate to evaluate different churches doctrines, but mocking is unnecessary & hurtful. You are also shying away from progressive churches (very wise). I hope you can find a church that teaches Scripture verse by verse, worships & prays to God, with good fellowship. That’s what church is all about! Blessings
*"Is it enough to live a simple life, love Jesus, love people, fear God, read His word and die to myself daily?"* Yes, and I say it again, yes! I have been doing some light study on the subject of miracles lately, and one thing that I've found incredibly amazing is how frequent genuine and highly-credible miracle reports are in all sorts of different denominations, and how often God moves through each of these denominations to bring people to the gospel... but the lack of these miracle stories among other religions outside Christianity. It's almost as though I get the impression that God is at work in all sorts of varying ways in the Christian churches, not limiting himself to any denomination, yet still keeping it clear that Jesus is the only way, the truth, and the life. When Jesus talked about salvation, he pointed to _himself,_ not any particular rules or even a certain doctrine of justification, but _himself._ I pray that God continues to guide you. Studying theology is very important and I'm sure God sees your struggle. I would also recommend you watch Gavin's videos on assurance of salvation, as well as his video "What if you're not sure if God exists?" (I know you already believe that but he says some really solid stuff in that video that might help your situation). Blessings, -CJ
Appreciate your work and channel, Gavin. Keep up the good work. Love how you are constantly digging into history, it really helps to connect the dots. So thank you!
Gavin, thank you for addressing dispensationalism vs covenentalism in the beginning. I've been wrestling with it recently and I even sent you a message about it. I'd love to see a full breakdown video in the future, especially for my own edification as someone who is looking at going into ministry or even academia.
Dr. Ortlund, the one-on-one interviews are extremely helpful and engaging. You ask great questions and set up the conversation in such a way as to be fair to conflicting viewpoints. One suggestion for a future interviewee is Michael Allen. He has done some fantastic work in theological retrieval, especially in his book "Grounded in Heaven".
My layperson's Protestant take on this is that this issue that appears complex would not have divided the East from the West if it weren't for other factors creating those divisions. It became the Theological justification for separating one another.
It became one of many excuses. It was taught for a couple of centuries before it became an issue in the East. The West had a habit in the first millennium of pulling the Eastern Church out of heresies such as Arainism, Donatism, Iconolasts etc. So there was some jealousy there and both sides lost their cool
@@catholicguy1073 Sorry! Iconoclasm isn't an heresy. If it is, then all the early church fathers were Herectic. The East will still make the same claim that you're making that they were in fact the ones pulling the West out of heresy.
@@catholicguy1073 Iconoclasm isn't an heresy. If it is, then all the early church fathers are. The East will still make the same claim that you're making that they were in fact the ones pulling the West out of heresy.
"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" John 15:26
Does this passage exclude procession also from the Son? I don't see exclusionary language here. Also the Council of Toledo had this passage available to them too and they still affirmed the filioque.
- John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send[+] in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you." - John 16:7 "Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth. It is for your benefit that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Counselor will not come to you. If I go, I will send[+] him to you." [+] Send - pémpō (same in both above verses) = to bid a thing to be carried to one
Jesus: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
It’s good that the patriarchs are trying to understand each other in recent years, undoing the great schism is a good thing to pray for since a schism was never God’s will for his people.
@@Defender_of_Faith You're right. Thanks for correcting me but I just wanted to make the point that we don't pray TO Jesus. We pray to the Father THROUGH Jesus.
@@butterflybeatles and by the power of the Holy Spirit? I'm surprised to hear a Catholic support this Trinitarian model of prayer, I thought the common idea was to pray to Saints (Chiefly the Ever-Virgin) to pass it on to Jesus to pass it on to the Father.
thank you for this episode Sir Gavin. many of the church here in Qatar does not recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is important. they think they know it but they differ in the interpretation in reality. we have a lot of people practicing Hinduism here. when you ask them about their "Trinity". they will answer the same way.
Also Gavin I apriciate your humble bookshelf. You don't need to show off all your books, people who listen to you can tell your well read. I am not passing judgment on anyone with the bookshelf but I've always worried it may come across as showing off and intimidate young scholars who are just getting started or people who are unable to read as much as they would like.
Hey Gavin, been watching your videos for a while now. Using your videos to study topics about early church and much more. I recently came across a video by David Erhan titled “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY Christian”. A few people are making comments about how you don’t want to respond to that video or that you wont talk about some of the evidence he mentioned in the video. I wanted to ask if you could maybe address some of his points in a video, because he does raise some good ones. I have my view on the matter but i, and many more, would really appreciate seeing you address what David Erhan is presenting to us as a solid case for icon veneration. As always, thank you so much for your honest work. God bless you and your family. May the Grace of our Lord be with you🙏🏽
@@TruthUnites To begin, I wanted to say that his video seemed to be a direct response to your icon veneration video. I’m saying this based on his title, the structure and order of his arguments, and the way he broke down some of the arguments made in your own video against icon veneration. He started off his video by defining what icon veneration is and clarifying the idea that, “To prove that icon veneration is an early church and a biblical practice, one must showcase that the principles of such practice were present rather than trying to give evidence that icons were being venerated in the first century”. I do agree with the claim stated above by David Erhan because this is the exact approach we used to prove and clarify something as important as the Trinity. I'm also only going to be addressing some of his rebuttals to your arguments and some of the Pre-Nicene claims he proposed, these were the ones that caught my attention the most and caused me to question some of the arguments in your video. 1. In Minicius Felix’s Octavius, Felix mentions in his dialogue between the christian and the pagan, that the christians don’t have altars, temples, or images. David Erhan claims that this mention of altars, temples, and images was about the pagan way of using them. He claims this because of the fact that christian did have altars and temples at this time in history, he uses a quote from Origen to prove that (Origen Control Celcum, Book VIII, Ch.20): “There is no comparison between our statues and the statues of the heathen, nor between our altars with what we may call the incense ascending from them, and the heathen altars, with the fat and blood of the victims; nor, finally, between the temples of senseless gods, admired by senseless men, who have no divine faculty for perceiving God, and the temples, statues, and altars which are worthy of God.” (Min 23 in his video) 2. Tertullian believed that every image was idolatrous and also died as a heretic believing some foreign doctrines about God. David claims “Why would we listen to what this man has to say about icons, considering he’s a heretic and known for making extreme claims about any image”? Tertullian also claimed the Bronze Serpent and the Cherubims that God commanded to build were acceptable, contradicting himself with previous claims of idolatrous images. David claims this to be a logical fallacy (Min 29 in his video) 3. Clement of Alexandria, like Tertullian, opposed all forms of images. He said the works of art cannot be holy, though even the 7th Council agrees secular artistry is not holy. However, unlike Tertullian, he didn't contradict himself and instead allegorized the imagery of the Cherubim, a position that is unbiblical and ahistorical. David then goes on to explain how Clement changes his position on the matter in his “The Instructor”. Clement says these images are allowed for practical reasons and “for the sake of safety”. (Min 33 in his video) 4. David also mentions that “The Gelasian Decree” was a decree that condemned many of the early church witnesses who wrote against iconography listing, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, and Clement of Alexandria. I personally couldn't find anything online about this. (Min 20 in his video) Quick Pre-Nicene evidence he mentions (Min 55 - 75 in his video) 1. Eusebius of Caesarea writes about how a miraculous statue of Jesus healing the bleeding women from Luke 8:40 was built in some village he visited. He writes about people being healed after touching, kissing, and venerating the statue. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 7, Ch.18). 2. Sophronius of Jerusalem writes about walking into a church and bowing down, praying, and venerating an icon of Jesus. He prays to Jesus through this icon for the healing of some young man in the church with him. (Sophronius of Jerusalem, Miracles of Cyrus and John, Pg 87.3557C - 3560c) 3. The catacombs of St-Callixtus (180-220 AD) and the Dura Europos synagogue (244 AD) both had images in liturgical locations. Once again Gavin, thank you for all the honest and hard work you do for Christ and his followers.
@@ForgivenDoomer thanks -- here from your other comment prompting me. Ah yes, I remember him trying to use Origen in that way -- this was one of the points that made me think it didn't merit a response, if I recall correctly. It is a misreading of Origen. See my video "Icon Veneration in the Early Church? Response to Craig Truglia" starting at 11:04. I deal with some of these other examples in that video. I won't go through all these points here but I do want to address your comment that "this is the exact approach we used to prove and clarify something as important as the Trinity." I would not agree. Nicaea 2 explicitly references the acts of bowing, kissing, lighting candles, etc. and the theology of figural representation, and claims these are apostolic tradition. I addressed this more in my recent response to Seraphim Hamilton. The apostles either bowed down to icons or they didn't. Nicaea 2 says they did. That is not comparable to the Trinity, which is a doctrine that grows in understanding but the basic idea (and practices like Trinitarian baptism, Matt. 28:19) are there right away, straight from the mouth of Christ. Hope that helps.
@@ForgivenDoomer Hey Friend! In addition to everything Gavin said here, I've done a lot of homework on Erhans video, and like Gavin I was unimpressed. Are you on discord by chance?
@@TruthUnites i will definitely check out the videos you referenced. Yes this was a great help, thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. Looking forward to your next book!🙏🏽
Revalation 22.1 Shows the Holy Spirit flowing (proceeding)from the throne of God and the Lamb. In Western theology, the Father is the first principal in the Trinity. That is, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, that is everything the Son has is received from the Father. The Father and Son jointly Spirate(the manner of the procession)the Holy Spirit.
The phrasing should be "From The Father, through The Son". Not east, nor west is 100% correct. West include filipoque to prevent Arian heresy, and East deny filioque to prevent "two godheads" heresy.
The Orthodox Church would be perfectly fine with that phrasing, since we're no longer saying the Holy Spirit procedes ontologically from the Son, but that's not the western position. West teaches that the Holy Spirit procedes from both Father and Son by means of spiration as the love between them.
Personally, I was taught that the truth lies in between the two. Strictly, I feel that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. So it is more related to the West although with a slight clarification although I'm no professional theologian.
The Filioque isnt about economia its about causation. Is the Son the source of the hypostasis of the Spirit or does that belong to Father alone. How you answer this question reveals your metaphysics of the triad. It might seem like both sides are saying the same thing but its really a fairly serious difference and thats why there is so much division over it
And 99% of Christians could care less about the metaphysics of the triad. Nobody truly understands how the trinity works and if you are getting so worked up about the minutiae you come off as triumphalist.
There’s not really any major difference with Orthodox today on this issue. It’s a non issue for the most part. The major issue is authority. Eastern Catholics many are Orthodox who came back to the Church. There’s about 250M of them. They are just fine with the Filioque
I'm sure I am not as well read as Sanders, but I have been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy a lot for about a year and a half now. I don't think I have ever read or heard an Orthodox Christian say that everything they disagree with regarding Roman Catholicism or Protestantism stems from the filioque, as Sanders seems to indicate in the "bad blood" section of the conversation.
Yeah, I think the filioque is overemphasized. There are bigger areas of disagreement with the East. I know, I was Greek Orthodox all my life and converted to Lutheranism last year.
I always heard the Filioque is at the core of the disagreement between East and West when and since the years I seriously investigated Eastern Orthodoxy.
I agree that protestants have a unique role they can play between East and West on this topic. You guys nailed it when discussing procession “through” the Son. This goes back to at least Maximos in the East. If this is what is meant by filioque, there is no issue. The trouble is Florence: The Son is along with the Father the source, cause, and principle of the Spirit. One of my grievances with Protestants is that they always say they affirm the filioque, but then explain that it can be understood as through the Son rather than from the Father and the Son as if one source. Why instead don’t they EVER say that we REJECT the filioque as dogmatized by Florence when this is the rub? The issue is not whether it can be affirmed in some sense, but rather that it cannot be affirmed in the way dogmatized by the Latin Church, which is the cause of continued schism.
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) Session 6-6 July 1439 [Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence] For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need. [EWTN COM /catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461]
Thanks Gavin, very interesting conversation. I wonder whether the Filioque unconsciously influenced Calvin's confidence in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper via Pneumatology. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then we can expect that the Spirit can communicate Christ and his benefits in this way. Fred Sanders is great and gave an excellent paper at the Scottish Dogmatics conference recently.
If the Trinity is the key to the gospel and salvation, how could it be classified as "need to know information"? If God is withholding the Trinity when revealing himself, whether in the OT or NT, he would thereby withholding the key to salvation. 45:06
Hey Dr Ortlund, i would love to hear your thoughts on whether you would sign the Evangelicals and catholics together document if it took place in 2024!
And finally, I really think that anyone who wants to interact on this topic ecumenically really needs to read Edward Siecienski's book. Maybe you all have, I don't know. If not I recommend it. I think it's very balanced.
3:05 “In one sense, I have *pride* of ownership; I made it up *myself* from Scripture.” The Catholic Church teaches that pride is a sin; further, pride is the Queen of All Vices; pride is the primary sin of the devil himself. Pride is a vice; humility is a virtue. God revealed Himself in the Trinity, and this guy takes *pride* in “making up the Trinity.” He’s trying to take ownership of something God Himself did. ❤
There is a positive sense of "pride" and a negative sense of pride. Otherwise you could never be happy or excited about anything you do, and that would be a miserable way to live your life. Also, beware of false humility.
@@thomasprefontaine5023 No; you should not do that. Are you “proud” of Jesus’s crucifixion? If your children are amazing, be thankful to God. You can be pleased with any good work you do, but being “proud” means taking ownership of someone else’s accomplishments. For example, a parent proud of their children make take credit for the good things their kids do, when they have no right. If the children are great; it’s despite the parents, not because of them. All good comes from God; and all evil comes from us. The best way a parent can car for their child is to teach them about God and how to rely on God more than your parents. Proud parents infantilize their children by taking ownership of all the actions of a child, which is appropriate for children, but not appropriate for adults. As far as young children go, be pleased with their good behavior, never proud. Pride is the primary sin of the devil; and he loves pride-hence, why the devil promotes “pride month.” But, if you are prepared to defend pride, I know a demon that’s happy to join you. Angels were created to serve man, despite being superior in basically every way. The devil, in his pride, refused to serve who he thought were inferior creatures. An Angel who refuses to serve his purpose becomes a demon. God advises us to be humble and confident. ♥️
@@LLR707 Pride and humility are antonyms. Humility is objectively always a virtue; and pride is objectively always a vice. If you mean a different word than pride, use a different word. “Pleased” perhaps?
Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as immanent from them both, or immanent from the Father but economic from the Son, we can say that the Holy Spirit has a relationship with both and in some sense does proceed to us from both. Given that there isn’t explicit clarity in the Bible over the Filioque, it seems that it can be something we allow to ultimately be a mystery and not create church schisms over it.
It seems based upon the Orthodox on UA-cam, they don't want to have this conversation. Even though the filioque was understood and used by many early church Fathers, the Orthodox do not seem willing to even acknowledge this in any way. I have heard some of them say Maximus the Confessor did not mean what he said, they make an excuse for his view. My question is if the Arian heresy had never came about would the filioque be an issue.
Uhh Orthodox yt channels are almost fixated on the filioque and in the early fathers it is very nieche and the orthodox are fine with 'the early church' talking about it because it deals with the mission of the HS not eternal manifestation. Early church speaks of one cause in the trinity speaking of the sending of the HS and that is Orthodox. The later filioque development mentions two causations which is the catholic understanding.
@Piranesi-gc8gn that is not correct. Council of Florence states The Holy Spirit is eternally from both Father and Son. The Holy Spirit shares the same divine nature as the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally in ONE "SPIRATION" from the Father and the Son as on "principle. This affirms the Father is the primary source from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, but the Spirit can not proceed void of the Son, because the Father and Son share the same divine nature. In reality it is just another excuse for some Orthodox to attack the west.
As a western Protestant I have to admit after studying this issue for some time, the Easter church appears to have got this right. Their argument seems iron clad: the Spirit’s procession from the Father is affirmed by Jesus, it’s in the original creed, the Father’s of the creed also held to it, and John of Damascus, who is considered the last of the Fathers also affirmed it “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.” The problem from my understanding is the council of Florence in the west argued that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as principal causes. I’ve also noticed a lot of western thinkers confuse the fathers on the Spirit’s procession between immanent vs. economic distinctions. Appreciate the video!
I’m with you. I’m Anglican but seriously explored Eastern Orthodoxy some years ago and came close to converting. To this day however I still strongly sympathize with the East on the Filioque issue. When I recite the Nicene Creed I always say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son”.
Seems like doctrinal hairsplitting to me. Imo, what matters is application in worship, and if you look at Western RCC/Anglicanism vs EO liturgies and spiritual practices, it's hard to see where this difference substantially plays out
As a layperson on this matter--Jesus' affirmation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father doesn't exclude it also proceeding from another person in the Trinity. Maybe I just don't understand
@cyclqal That's correct. The filioque is not directly contradictory to the original Creed. But we can look at the additional context of the writings of the early Church Fathers to see what the clear Orthodox stance on this issue is. The Eastern Church is right on this one. The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father, not from the Son. The Holy Spirit is that which proceeds from the Father to beget the Son. If the Spirit proceeded *from* the Son, that would just make the Son the Father. It's a clear misunderstanding of the nature of the cooperation of the three persons of God.
34;03 I would suggest that, in order to de-escalate this controversy, that we go to Scripture alone.There has been far too much cherry picking of Patristic quotations that are taken out of context and overinflated. Scripture alone solved this issue for me and I have an Orthodox Study Bible in which I have highlighted every verse that I could find that speaks to this issue. The Filioque is overwhelmingly supported by Sacred Scripture.
"However, the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything". The fact that confusion within the church increases with time rather than decreases makes me believe that there is no holy spirit in the church teaching people things.
Jesus specifically commanded us to pray exclusively to the Father in His (Jesus's) name. I have not seen anywhere in God's Word that praying to the Son or Spirit are indicated in any way.
It was addressed very briefly later on, but in the argument for the Filioque, is it not significant that the Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son (e.g. Romans 8)? I know if the last supper discourse the Spirit explicitly proceeds from the Father, yet is sent by both the Father and the Son. One might say the sending is only economic, not ontological. But it seems to necessarily go deeper to affirm that He is the Spirit of the Son as well as the Spirit of the Father.
It seems like this shouldn't be as big of an issues as it is, given that it seems that reasonable arguments can be made either way and both sides can fit within the label "Christian." It also seems to me that this issue often serves as a flag for different groups to rally around and use to distinguish themselves from the other side. Something that I think about a lot when it comes to theological issues (especially the more nerdy ones) is that they often seem to overlap with other issues and groups (social, political, cultural, etc). Not that this invalidates them!
This might be the case if it wasn't for the monarchia of the Father held to by the East. I think this is the main reason we have to stand against the filioque so strongly. Since this is mostly forgotten or abandoned by the West it makes sense that they wouldn't see it as such a big issue.
The "Filioque" controversy is not and has never been a purely theological issue. It has historically been used as a much cherished rationalization for the Orthodox Churches continued separation from Rome. They have made it such that for them to accept the Filioque is now to reject the claim of the Orthodox Churches to be the One, True Church. They have, in many ways, institutionalized their rejection of this Scripturally sound doctrine. One need only look at the conversations and discussions on the many videos to observe this. You will rarely find an Orthodox commentator who is willing to even admit that the Filioque is , at best, even arguable. I like this video because Protestants have no Ecclesiological baggage to box themselves into regarding the origin of the Holy Spirit. Scripture alone is the way.
Sorry, I reject your analysis. The Orthodox Church strongly believes in the unity of the Church. It was happy to go back into communion with the Popes after the fuss with Photius. It was actually the Franks who were desperate to find accurse the Byzantines of heresy so they could assume leadership of Christendom. We just want to follow the wishes of Pope Leo III and keep the Creed unchanged. In 1054 Humbert accused the Byzantines of 'deleting' the filioque and in the 1270s the Popes sent enforcers to get the Byzantines to add the filioque in Greek even though they had earlier stated that union didn't mean that. You will find Papal aggression is a much bigger issue than the filioque for us Orthodox.
Jesus said, I will give you another helper, he will take what is mine and give it to you. Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit, John 16. I’m not saying the Father isn’t giving it. Jesus said, I and the Father are one.
While this has always been an interesting topic I don't think that the differing views on the subject were the major reason for the divide. The rapid centralization and expansive growth of the Western Church was tremendous during this time. The Eastern church remained strong in only smaller, more localized communities. Political ideas, views on Church "direction" and geographic separation all contributed to the divide. .
So two persons in the trinity have an ontological property that the spirit lacks, namely the begetting/procession of a divine person? Does the scripture not say: John 15:26 (KJV) 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you FROM the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDED FROM the Father, he shall testify of me: Sending the spirit is something different from being the personal origin of the spirit. The bible never claims such a thing concerning the son in relation to the spirit.
I guess I have essentially the same question when I ask what does "Proceed From" mean? Is it who gave the Divine directive or where did the Spirit originate?
@@yvichenj333this is actually answered by the Greek so far as I can tell. The word is: εκπορευοται which means the "go out/come from" kind and appears to specifically carry a "locational" connotation rather than possessive/characteristic kind. It seems likely, especially given that Jesus right before says HE (Jesus) will "send the Holy Spirit from/with/by the Father", that Jesus is comparing the words and using them similarly but oppositely. Jesus will go to the Father, which we know is where He goes when He ascends, which is also where the Holy Spirit is (with the Father). And the Holy Spirit "goes out from/comes from" the Father. Within the context, the most natural reading is simply, "where the Father is, the Holy Spirit is also, and when I go there, I (Jesus) will send Him to you from where the Father is." Taking it any further than that into origins (at least in this John verse) just seems to go too far and read into things something neither in the Greek (originates/sole possession of) nor the context. My two cents looking at the underlying Greek words.
Does anyone know when or if the filioque was added to the Athanasian creed? I know Athanasius didn't write it and it's a western creed, but in just curious.
Actually, the Scriptures, i.e., God told us about prayer to the Holy Spirit in Hesekiel 37:9 and Matthew 9:38-39 and Acts 13:1-2 as reference. Additionally, we are to have fellowship with the Holy Spirit (2. Corinthians 13:14). I suppose that fellowship is to take place on a constant, regular basis, but how can we have fellowship with someone without directly communicating with that person?
Loved this. Been thinking about this topic a lot lately. Would’ve loved to hear Dr Sanders explore it in more depth. I’ve been wrestling with a few Eastern Orthodox objections. For instance, how does a double-spiration not result in two Spirits? If Spirit is distinguished from Father and Son by the process of spiration itself, and if he spirates from two origins, is that not two spirations and thus two Spirits? Or is it ultimately only one spiration but somehow in two directions? If the latter, wouldn’t the father still be the only real origin of the Spirit? What then is added by the filioque? Is it still relevant?
The way I usually see people explain this relationship is not exactly in terms of spiration, so I'm not sure if my input will be relevant to your question. Maybe this won't help at all, but I'll respond anyway, lol. But I don't think there's any reason to assume that two breaths would necessarily result in two Spirits as opposed to the coincidence (as in coming together, I don't mean that it's accidental) of the two breaths generating one Spirit. The way I have recently seen it described is that the Spirit *is* the love between the Father and the Son. The act or expression, the reality of that eternal love between Father and Son is, itself, a person. Something like that, I might not be conveying it well. I bring it up because I think that same kind of poetic explanation works equally if you want to describe it in terms of spiration. Short version, I don't see why two breaths MUST equal two Spirits versus the two breaths coming together in the eternal generation of one Spirit. The certainty of that claim seems on shaky ground to me. It assumes a definitive knowledge of the inner "mechanics" of God, so to speak, that I don't see how we can rightfully claim.
@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny thank you. You gave a good response. I am familiar with Augustine’s idea that the Spirit is the love that exists between the Father and the Son. While I am attracted to that idea (I see beauty in it), I am not entirely convinced. Mainly because it seems to diminish the personhood of the Spirit. What does it mean that the Father’s “love” for the Son is a fully substantialized divine Person co-equal with himself? How can love be a person? Augustine uses analogies from human experience that I just don’t resonate with. I certainly don’t think of my love for my wife, or for my friend, as a separate personality between us. Also, even if we grant Augustine’s idea, I don’t see how that escapes the objection, because an Eastern Orthodox believer could just as easily insist that the love of the Father for the Son is not the same act as the love of the Son for the Father. If it was, wouldn’t we have to admit that the Son is the same person as the Father? Since we say that the Son is not the Father, the love for the Son by the Father must be one act, and the love for the Father by the Son must be another, distinct act. Perhaps, you might say, the love is a single act because the Father and the Son, while not the same person, are the same substance. In other words, the object of the love is the one, undivided substance, not the persons. But in that case, who is loving whom? Without a distinct subject and object, love cannot meaningfully exist. It wouldn’t be the Father’s love for the Son at all. If anything, it would be his love for himself. The one substance loving the one substance? How does that make sense? I’m sure I’m wrong somewhere, but I haven’t found anything that can help me with these questions yet.
@@NomosCharis Thank you for your reply, and I apologize if my initial response was a bit unclear. My intent was not to say that the "Spirit is the personification of the shared love between Father and Son" idea was the answer to the original question you posed. I merely hoped that it might provide a useful comparative way of thinking about the double spiration issue. If it wasn't helpful, feel free to discard. My main goal was to establish that we cannot possibly say with any degree of certainty that two spirations must, of necessity, result in two Spirits. There's simply nothing to base that argument on. One can assert it, but on what foundation? The same objection applies with the hypothetical objection to the love example I used. We can't know, in God, that the act of Father loving Son and Son loving Father MUST result in two persons. There could be something intrinsic to God's nature/essence such that the meeting of those two eternal realities eternally generates the third person. The fact that human to human love isn't intrinsically personified in the same manner isn't a defeater because God is inherently unlike us. Likewise, we also can't know definitively that two acts or feelings or what have you must necessarily have two distinct results. As an example, creation is clearly a joint act of the persons of the Trinity, but it resulted in one creation. The atonement was a joint act of the persons of the Trinity, but it was a single atonement. Of course, those analogies are insufficient because God necessarily relates to all created things differently than to Himself. We just have nothing observable to compare the generation of the Spirit with. And if it's not absolutely clearly revealed in Scripture, then I don't feel safe to be dogmatic about it to the point of exclusion. Granted, in this case I think scripture is clear. The Spirit is said to be sent by both Father and Son and is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Son (John 14:26, John 15:26, Acts 16:7, Galatians 4:6). But that might not be a convincing interpretation to someone else, and I'm not ready to anathematize them over the issue. Anyway, I'm not sure how well I'm doing at conveying thoughts here, because I'm stuck typing it all on a phone and I kind of suck at that. But to wrap up, my main argument is that you can't make the assertion that two must necessarily equal two when He has revealed himself such that three equals one. Anyway, I hope that was edifying or helpful in some way, as I also enjoyed reading your reply. God bless, and I hope you find some answers!
@@PhrenicosmicOntogenyBut why should this sending be seen as ontological? We also see examples of the action being spirt to son rather than the other way. The spirt is said to be upon Christ in the synagogue, it descends at his baptism, and he refers to it glorifying him at his crucifixtion. The holy spirt comes down on the body of Christ at Pentecost and also when he gives gifts “as he wills”. It even incarnates Christ when it comes upon Mary. All of this jives pretty well with the eastern phrase that the spirt procedes from the father and rests upon the son. The western perspective is selective in reading what economic events are relevant to the ontological trinity
@@esoterico7750 Apologies if my intent was unclear, but I did not mean that the "sending" of the Spirit must be seen as related to ontological "origination," so to speak. Mentioning the sending language was only to point out how it's stated. It's said in such a way that it would be correct to state the sending of the Spirit was an action of both Father and Son. I agree that this doesn't have to be, and likely isn't, about generation or spiration. However, the Holy Spirit is directly called the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7, Philippians 1:19), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), and the Spirit of the [His] Son (Galatians 4:6) in like manner as He is called the Spirit of the [your] Father (Matt 10:20). That does imply ontological origination, and that particular relationship is never reversed such that the Son is "of the Spirit" in a similar way. So, the Holy Spirit is described to be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, and to be equally sent by both Father and Son. That's enough for me. But I never intended any of that to be definitive. My point wasn't that you MUST understand the text like I do. But it's certainly not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. I was only stating the position I find most compelling. Your accusation of "selective reading" is your opinion, not fact. More importantly, it's unhelpful to the conversation. I can just as readily make the same assertion about your view. That you've supported your existing beliefs by reading the Eastern view into the texts, ignoring whatever doesn't fit. And further, that the Western view nicely comports with an accurate and holistic reading of all the relevant passages. But the bare fact of me saying so doesn't make these things true anymore than you asserting your view makes it true. And such claims add nothing substantive to the topic under discussion. I believe the Western position to to be (at least more) correct on this one issue. However, I'm not simply reading a few passages I like to support a conclusion I already had. As of today, I'm convinced the Western view makes more sense of ALL the related texts but, beyond that, I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't actually care which side has the correct answer. I'm not bound to either side in any way. In fact, I didn't even know this was an issue, much less a controversial one, until maybe a year ago. I never had an opinion on it before then. At the end of the day, I'd be just as happy if the Eastern view is correct as if the Western view is. Or if the most correct answer turned out to be some other view entirely, for that matter. You and anybody else are always more than welcome to disagree with me, of course. I'm not going to be dogmatic about this specific issue, and I'm certainly unwilling to fling around anathemas because of it.
If the Holy spirit proceeds from the Son, why do we read in Mathew 3: 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” It seems to me that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at this moment and it did not proceed from him.
Faith in the death by crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ saves a man’s soul. As Christians, we must emanate Christ regarding every walk of life. Thus, just as Joseph and Mary consecrated Jesus in the Temple of God when He was a child, so must we consecrate our children in Church. However, understand that this act of faith did not require water baptism, and that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist during His adulthood to receive the Holy Spirit from His Father. Therefore, so must we at our age of maturity be water baptized in the holy name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by consciously repenting to be saved. Otherwise, just as faith without works is dead, what purpose does baptism serve without willful repentance?
The huge flaw in the pro-filioquist argument is that the same logic isn't applied to the relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. The argument goes that the Son must have some causality in the procession of the Holy Spirit because of the unity of the Godhead with the same 'ousia' but by that logic the Holy Spirit plays a role in the generation of the Son. Of course, no Latin theologian claims that!
The Holy Spirit is the abstraction of the relationship between Father and Son. What is this relationship? It is holy and it is spiritual. In this sense the Holy Spirit retroactively can be said to produce the Father and the Son in the sense that he is their synthesis.
What you guys call the original Nicene- Constantinople Creed was altered the first time. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea. According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession. - Catholic Answers
I consider myself protestant but after considering this for a while and listening to EO Christians explain their viewpoint I've become conviced that the filioque is incorrect. The argument that convinced me is if 2 members of the trinity share a property that the 3rd member doesnt have then youve created a new category of property different than hypostatic property and essence property, so the trinity goes from being 3 and 1, to 3 and 2 and 1. I would have liked if that argument was addressed, cause I think most EO Christians would say that's their strongest argument. Big fan of the show otherwise, but if I had to bet the filioque is an error and muddies the mind when thinking about the trinity. Understanding why the filioque is an error can give you a lot of insight into the category distinctions of hypostatic and essence properties, because if the filioque is true then we are describing a property of the Father and Son that is neither of those and must be some other type of property.
The flip side is this: if the spirit just proceeds from the father, then what makes the Son and Spirit different? To say one is spirated and the other is begotten are just terms that mean different things to a certain group but otherwise can be substituted for each other, to everyone else.
@@Brainboxreview But those are the terms the Scriptures and Tradition gives us. St. Gregory the Theologian basically says that we can’t really know what “begotten” “unbegotten” or “proceeds” actually mean because they are just signs that point to who God is. It’s sufficient simply to use the distinction the Scripture and Tradition gives us and not invent further distinctions.
@@garrett2514 exactly the distinctions are purely nominal IF we go by the EO paradigm. There aren’t any real distinctions between the Son and the Spirit. Secondly, if you’re gonna talk about tradition, the concept that the EOs use to describe the relation between the Son and the Spirit is called Eternal Manifestation or Energetic Procession. This is found no where among the patristics till the 13th century
@@BrainboxreviewI'm personally agnostic on the Filioque question, but I think your "If they're both from the Father alone there's no way to distinguish a real difference" argument against the EO position is not good. This is like arguing that there is no difference between a son and a daughter because they have the same parents. Or that we can't distinguish said son and daughter because they have the same parents. Things can have the same origin, and yet have different properties and identities. That being said your point on the patristics is a stronger one.
@@Brainboxreview Just because we can’t conceptualize the difference doesn’t mean that the distinction is purely nominal. And I was quoting a Church Father, not someone to disregard unnecessarily. Eternal manifestation is simply one way to describe the “through the Son language” and it’s not a dogmatic way to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. Arians could say the same thing about “homoousia.” It’s a development in language, not doctrine.
My summation of this topic. Though I'm not Orthodox, I'm with them on this one. Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian Theology: God is One: Our Father God is Triune: Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis) One in Essence (Ousia) The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is shared and expressed by the Three Divine Persons The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche" The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father Economically, "Energetically", Providentially toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment (the Eastern view of "simplicity" also differs to the Western One. The Eastern Orthodox would see that God both intends and manifests - by His Mind and Will (which are "really" and not simply "conceptually" distinct from Nature and Person also) and manifests distinct Attributes and Activities / Energies to distinct people and circumstances... though it is equally true to say that they are of the one Divine Uncreated Energy) ✌️💚🙏
@@Bbos2383 I've been part of most denominations, and in non-denominational charismatic circles over the last 40 years. I will probably be received into the Orthodox at some point - when present poor health and a change of locality allows. I am simply a Christian.
My issue with procession and begotten is how are they co-eternal if one comes from the other and especially if the spirit comes from the father and son? Then again the mystery of God is great, so i don't know if this really answerable.
I don't know if this will help but this is how I think about it: Since they are all one substance, even if either of the persons of the Trinity are "begotten" or "proceed" from the Father, this wouldn't be an issue because that substance cannot be superior or inferior to itself. If it were, then the Father would not be God.
I wish he would make a video on it. I stopped holding to eternal security, and one of the reasons was exactly that. Or course scripture was more important, but that too. I really wish he does.
@@tymon1928For one thing we have not anathematized or excommunicated whole swaths of other Christians, so we have fewer barriers between us and our dialogue partners. Also, since we believe the church can err and subsequently be corrected, we are always open to reexamining and refining or even reforming our beliefs as we listen to the arguments put forth by others in the light of Holy Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@Emie-f3g I would agree. The Councils are certainly another example of the Church refining its doctrine in the face of error. Protestantism has more in common with the Councils than the heresies that brought the Councils about.
@Emie-f3g Protestants don’t reject Church authority. They reject theological error. And since the Church can err, they look to the testimony of Holy Scripture to discern the truth.
I don't think a discussion on the Filioque is complete without mentioning St. Maximus the Confessor. A lot of the disagreement comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the Greek having separate words for "proceed and causes" or just "proceed" Specifically Maximus the Confessor letter to the priest Marinus “With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias). . . “One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”
Curious how you'd respond to the idea that the filioque is an unbiblical accretion. It seems to me that John 15:26, in all likelihood, does not support the eternal procession of the Spirit, but refers more to the mission of the Spirit (cf. Carson's commentary, Keener's commentary, and other modern commentaries). The idea of the Spirit "proceeding" from the Father is not indicative of the ontology of the Godhead, but rather alludes to the "pouring out" of the Spirit from prophetic literature. Why accept the idea of eternal procession/generation at all? Is there any biblical support for this at all?
er.. the Roman Church imposed it in the first place and persecuted anyone who didn't affirm it. They've gotten softer since Vatican II, but I think your assertion is a bit off the mark.
@@simontemplar3359 My comment said some Eatern Catholic were and still NOT saying Filioque. They are not persecuted. Filioque was added to do away with heresy spreading in wetern Europe. Now its generally percieved nothing wrong in it. Shun your hatred and pray for unity.
@@bobbobberson5627 Catholic Church incorporates not only east but also many rites. There are 23 Churches with varied rites come under Rome, as long it doesn't hurt core teachings of the curch. Dont you like this inclusiveness ?
The Orthodox are wrong about the filioque, but the West was wrong to both change the Nicene Creed unilaterally and excommunicate Constantinople for not agreeing with it.
Read the Tower of Babel. They were trying to WORK their way to heaven and MAKE A NAME for themselves. They were scattered and confused. Why are Christians SCATTERED. "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."- Philippians 2:21.
So its litterally just From father and son. Or from the father through the son... I dont see the issue. Perse. It seems just a slightly different view of senantics...
Well, on a surface level, it may seem so, but I would say that there is a difference in the two views and leads to different conceptions on the trinity. I haven't watched the whole video so im not sure if this is addressed, but there were also significant political and echlesial reasons the schism.
Gavin is there anyway you could answer something that Alex O’ Conner asked in his debate with Dinesh? Alex had said that the Bible says that the Earth was made before the sun, while science says the opposite. This has really been bugging me.
45;53 The Spirit does not "send" the Son into the wilderness. He "drives" Jesus into the wilderness or He "leads" him into the wilderness. This is not the same as "sending". This basically means that Jesus was driven by the Divine Love which the Holy Spirit is.
The 381 creed is itself an addition to the creed, so if that one is okay, why not add another truth? The west and east simply put different meaning into the words, and in actuality they don't even disagree, and this has been figured out in recent ecumenical dialogue. They still disagree whether the addition to the creed is a problem, but not actually in the theology, which they assumed to for a thousand years.
The point is not that creeds can't be changed, it's that they would need to be changed concilarly, as Chalcedon did to Nicea. A pope or a local council can't do it..
@@kgrant67 Language, concepts, meaning and modes of thinking and relating the world does change over time. The changes in the outside world will force changes in the church, and those changes do not happen evenly, either in space or time.
An Eastern Orthodox Christian cannot "concede" on this or even "de-escalate" without compromising his Orthodox faith. I don't say this to be difficult, but this isn't an issue of opinion or personal inclination. This is a core issue and is not one that the Orthodox will back away from. Again: not fighting words, just simply stating the facts.
Does any else find it interesting that when sola scriptura folks address this issue, the last thing they want to do is read the scriptures. And, the pathetic part is that they don’t even care. They have no hint of embarrassment, much less shame, about it.
One of many Theological ideas that confuse and devide the people of God I think. As far as I'm aware there is no doctrine, dogma that is universally agreed among Prodistants, Catholics, East Orthodox believers. One thing that unites us is a general looking to Jesus, trusting in Him & trusting in what he has done for our salvation. Apart from this general gospel message all other Theological details is your guess is a good as mine. No devintive Theological "truth" / doctrine that brings agreed catholic unity. (Even Vatican 2 splits the Roman Catholic church ) That's my thoughts speaking as a confused ecumenical doubting believer attending an Anglican church for many years.... My religion was once Reformed many years ago and now I have ecumenical faith in Jesus not belonging to a particular tribe / denomination. Please pray for me and the church for clarity and unity.
The Christian argument about this appears so ridiculous (as a cause of schism and anathema) when you're also insisting that the three are one God from eternity. This kind of doctrinal debate really puts the belief in genuine divine oneness at risk.
Luke 9 23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
So two persons in the trinity have an ontological property that that the spirit lacks, namely the begetting of a divine person? Does the scripture not say: John 15:26 (KJV) 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you FROM the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDED FROM the Father, he shall testify of me: Sending the spirit is something different from being the personal origin of the spirit. The bible never claims such a thing.
@@zzzzppppoooooThe Holy Spirit has the same property, the reason the Spirit does not "produce" another Divine Person is that there are only 2 modes of procession(intellect and will). Revelation 22:1 says that the river of the water of life(which is identified as the Holy Spirit in both the New and the Old testament) proceeds from the throne of the throne of God AND of the Lamb. Revelation 22:1 uses the same Greek word that John 15:26 uses for proceeding (ekporeuomai). If you want to say Revelation 22:1 is about economic procession, one could argue the exact same thing about John 15.
@@thenewhope123 were are you getting only two modes of procession, and hiw does that relate to the spirit. So are you saying the spirit possesses the ability to originate a divine person? What is the hypostatic or personal marker of the Father, if not to be source fount and origin, as the fathers say?
@@zzzzppppooooo God is a pure Spirit/Mind, therefore he does not have a bunch of different faculties like we do. The Mind consists of an intellect and a will, which are the only two faculties by which God could proceed. This is a short explanation of this topic: ua-cam.com/video/tpxk3jCcVis/v-deo.htmlsi=fb_KxLBMy32awywn Not sure what you're referring to in the other part of your response, but we do affirm that Father is the unprincipled principle or the uncaused cause.
It's more important to think of qualities than of quantities. The oneness of God is the oneess of everything, the foundation, the unity, the order, the integration and precenae of all in all. Of this great unity there is and can be only one. The threeness of the persons of God is the thing that enables there to still be movement, giving, receiving, community, life, and even stability. One can in theory read the trinity our of the properties of reality. It's not simply some sentences to remember, it's deeply interwoven with the fabric of everything and how we exist in it. No one said it was about mathematics. No one said God is describable. We only know from the entirity of human experience what the quality of one, two and three is. The objects we sometimes count, are intellectual constructs, nothing exists in isolation in actuality. Counting is a tool we use to grasp some things, but we always loose something else by this method. We shouldn't expect a priory our way of thinking in objects separate, to be applicable to absolute fundamental reality. It's just not reasonable to begin with.
This is an observation (which may be incomplete): it is interesting that Protestants, which hold to Sola Scriptura, accept the filioque instead of holding tight to the words of Jesus in the Scriptures Who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Since there is controversy with history and theologizing, it seems they would choose to rise above that and hold to the text of Scripture. I think there is something deeper going on there, but it is an interesting observation.
Could it possibly be that there is no prayer to, worship given, praise to, songs to, veneration of, bowing towards etc... the holy spirit because the holy spirit is not a distinct individual person?
He is literally referred to as a person in multiple ways. He can speak, be spoken to and listen, repeats what He hears, He has emotions, He is distinct from the Father and Son while being equated to God in His identity, and He fully shares Their divine name.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, AND THE SON, Jesus would not have needed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Essentially it's saying that God baptized Jesus by Jesus.
This man needs more bookshelves.
Ya usually smart people like to read, go figure! 🤨
Or he purposely put them there.🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Golden_writes550 🥴👋
Notice how he puts the narrowest books at the bottom and the biggest, heaviest books at the top of the pile.
And some more beds so he can study anywhere in the house.
Studying the filioque is like an eternal game of chutes and ladders. You think you're getting somewhere, only to land on a space that brings you all the way back to the beginning. Intellectually humbling to say the least!
Haven’t watched the video yet to hear the discussion, but I don’t get how this got to be such a divisive subject. The Bible says the Father sends the Holy Spirit. The Bible also says Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. I have a lot of theological confusion on other subjects, but this one seems so straightforward to me! I don’t get it. Will definitely have to watch this after work.
New meaning to “I am the beginning and the end”
@@anne.ominousthe best teaching on the filioque is Dwong, check him out
The first argument people make regarding the filioque wasn’t even what they were arguing about in 1054. This one takes a minute to understand.
@@anne.ominousI’m Protestant but my understanding is that they would say that those are two different things and the relationship between The Son and the Holy Spirit are different from the other relationships. I probably didn’t explain that very well 😂
Fred Sanders is a wonderful communicator of the truth of the Holy Trinity. I have long admired him.
Same. His book "The Deep Things of God" was very helpful to me.
@Throwaway-jn1jm
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (Jn 17:3)
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Cor 13:12)
The substance of our life in Christ is knowing God. When we're with him, when we see him as he is, we'll be in a perfect, loving relationship with him, forever!
The filioque doesn't save you or prevent you from salvation. But understanding it is part of understanding God. Understanding God is both our eternal life in the future and our born-again life now.
It isn't about "oh no, we better not be wrong or something terrible will happen!" It isn't "Well if I have perfect theology I get a bigger prize later!"
It's "We want to understand this about God because we love him!"
The driving force behind theology is loving God. Not trying to be right, not trying to earn something, not trying to avoid something. Just getting to know Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit.
Hi Gavin. I’ve been researching the Church and all the different denominations and historical evolutions and everything for the past few months. Although I am very far from even an entry level theologian, I find myself clued up enough to explain the basics, but not clued up enough to actually agree or disagree 100% with any of them. I believe a lot of people are in my shoes. Protestants, who grew up protestant, never questioning what we believed in, and with youtube and the algorithm being so aggressive find ourselves practically lost. One can make a good argument supporting Orthodoxy. Another good argument can be made to support Catholicism. One can even make a good argument for Protestantism. Just as one can make good arguments, one can make bad ones used as ammunition to refute the other. Orthodoxy can say a lot of bad things about Protestantism. Visa Versa and the same is true with Catholicism. It has gotten to a point where I really have no idea what to believe in anymore. There are so many people saying so many things. I find myself cringing at modern progressive churches, but also feeling heavily uneasy when it comes to icons, Mary and theological differences like salvation mechanisms and Theosis. It all just feels so complicated. Is salvation supposed to be so hard to understand? Is Church so difficult to get right? Is it enough to live a simple life, love Jesus, love people, fear God, read His word and die to myself daily? I feel let down. Not necessarily by Protestantism, but by everyone advocating any doctrine online. They slander each other and make offensive memes. Do they understand what it feels like, scrolling at the end of the day, and seeing a meme that attacks and, for a lack of a better phrase, takes a dump on the very thing you hold near and dear to your heart? I think there are Catholics and Orthodox(s) that also have experienced this. How can we use the Word thats described as a sword so violently against each other? Now I know and I’m sure as I’m sure Jesus rose from the grave that there are going to be people commenting on this, trying to advocate their Church. And how can I blame them? They are doing what they think is right. This is a deep, deep hole. And I find myself without light, help or genuine kindness from anyone. Where does one start to rebuild your faith when it has been SMASHED by those entrusted, or at least those who claim it to be entrusted to. - Sincerely, a guy just trying to die enough.
I was in a similar position a year or so ago, and it's not fun. But it's also not forever. Just pray about it, trust God to lead you in your studies, and be honest with yourself about how you feel as you keep looking. There's light at the end of the tunnel - EVERY church agrees that Jesus died so we could live. Keep running your race :)
But the meme thing, oh my gosh thank you. One of my Catholic friends used to read and make these very mean jokes about other denominations and non Christians, and I knew he would never say anything nasty to those people but it made me SO uncomfortable. And it definitely hurt my feelings when Protestants were in the cross hairs lol
Ek resoneer met hierdie - neem aan jy is Afrikaans agv jou naam. Sit in dieselfde posisie, Suid-Afrika is maar sterk protestant, gereformeerd en in my kringe vreeslik charismaties - iets wat ek al hoe verder vanaf weg beweeg. Dis moeilik om die waarheid tussen dit alles te vind en ek sit tans met meer vrae as antwoorde, jy is nie alleen nie.
I love your seeking heart! I think you already have more figured out than you know. You know there are extraneous practices that make you feel very uncomfortable. Listen to your spirit on this. You know that cruelty & shaming is damaging. It’s appropriate to evaluate different churches doctrines, but mocking is unnecessary & hurtful. You are also shying away from progressive churches (very wise).
I hope you can find a church that teaches Scripture verse by verse, worships & prays to God, with good fellowship. That’s what church is all about!
Blessings
*"Is it enough to live a simple life, love Jesus, love people, fear God, read His word and die to myself daily?"*
Yes, and I say it again, yes!
I have been doing some light study on the subject of miracles lately, and one thing that I've found incredibly amazing is how frequent genuine and highly-credible miracle reports are in all sorts of different denominations, and how often God moves through each of these denominations to bring people to the gospel... but the lack of these miracle stories among other religions outside Christianity. It's almost as though I get the impression that God is at work in all sorts of varying ways in the Christian churches, not limiting himself to any denomination, yet still keeping it clear that Jesus is the only way, the truth, and the life. When Jesus talked about salvation, he pointed to _himself,_ not any particular rules or even a certain doctrine of justification, but _himself._
I pray that God continues to guide you. Studying theology is very important and I'm sure God sees your struggle. I would also recommend you watch Gavin's videos on assurance of salvation, as well as his video "What if you're not sure if God exists?" (I know you already believe that but he says some really solid stuff in that video that might help your situation).
Blessings,
-CJ
Just attend a Divine Liturgy and you’ll find the answer so to experience not through these arguments
Appreciate your work and channel, Gavin. Keep up the good work. Love how you are constantly digging into history, it really helps to connect the dots. So thank you!
Wonderful conversation. The future of the church is bright.
really?
Gavin, thank you for addressing dispensationalism vs covenentalism in the beginning. I've been wrestling with it recently and I even sent you a message about it. I'd love to see a full breakdown video in the future, especially for my own edification as someone who is looking at going into ministry or even academia.
May I recommend a book, “Discontinuity to Continuity: a Survey of Dispensational & Covenantal Theologies,” by Benjamin L. Merkle
I took a class at Talbot on eschatology and this was our main book. Good read! Progressive dispensationalism is the view I find the most compelling.
Gavin’s the best
Dr. Ortlund, the one-on-one interviews are extremely helpful and engaging. You ask great questions and set up the conversation in such a way as to be fair to conflicting viewpoints. One suggestion for a future interviewee is Michael Allen. He has done some fantastic work in theological retrieval, especially in his book "Grounded in Heaven".
That's great how Fred worked out the Trinity by himself, but couldn't work out that you can read the Bible when you aren't in bed 😂
Hahaha
He did actually work out how to read the Bible while being somewhere other than bed. It just took him some time 😂
@@Vitamin.Z true
@Vitamin.Z true. I think I was allowing myself a little artistic licence
Truly a great youtube channel, by the Glory of God 🙏🏽
My layperson's Protestant take on this is that this issue that appears complex would not have divided the East from the West if it weren't for other factors creating those divisions. It became the Theological justification for separating one another.
Exactly!!
It became one of many excuses. It was taught for a couple of centuries before it became an issue in the East. The West had a habit in the first millennium of pulling the Eastern Church out of heresies such as Arainism, Donatism, Iconolasts etc. So there was some jealousy there and both sides lost their cool
@@catholicguy1073 Sorry! Iconoclasm isn't an heresy. If it is, then all the early church fathers were Herectic. The East will still make the same claim that you're making that they were in fact the ones pulling the West out of heresy.
@@catholicguy1073 Iconoclasm isn't an heresy. If it is, then all the early church fathers are. The East will still make the same claim that you're making that they were in fact the ones pulling the West out of heresy.
@@catholicguy1073 Sorry! Iconoclasm isn't an heresy. If it is, then all the early church fathers are.
Awesome talk thanks Gavin. I always learn something important.
I'm a Catholic and certainly I will say before watching the video that I do agree, even Jay Dyer admits St. Augustine teaches the Filioque clause.
Thanks for making a video on this !
"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"
John 15:26
Game over
Man you’ve just solved a 1000 year debate! Thank you for bringing this verse that no one has read before
Does this passage exclude procession also from the Son? I don't see exclusionary language here. Also the Council of Toledo had this passage available to them too and they still affirmed the filioque.
@@Brainboxreviewexactly
- John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send[+] in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you."
- John 16:7 "Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth. It is for your benefit that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Counselor will not come to you. If I go, I will send[+] him to you."
[+] Send - pémpō (same in both above verses) = to bid a thing to be carried to one
I listened to Fred's lecture series on the Trinity! So helpful.
This is a fascinating discussion.
Jesus: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
It’s good that the patriarchs are trying to understand each other in recent years, undoing the great schism is a good thing to pray for since a schism was never God’s will for his people.
i've also watched, Mathew Barrett workshop on the Trinity and it was also helpful. 👍
Every Catholic prayer ends with, "through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen".
Not all Catholic prayers end with that.
@@Defender_of_Faith You're right. Thanks for correcting me but I just wanted to make the point that we don't pray TO Jesus. We pray to the Father THROUGH Jesus.
@@butterflybeatles The Catholic Faith has beautiful prayers.
@@butterflybeatles and by the power of the Holy Spirit?
I'm surprised to hear a Catholic support this Trinitarian model of prayer, I thought the common idea was to pray to Saints (Chiefly the Ever-Virgin) to pass it on to Jesus to pass it on to the Father.
@@j.g.4942 Well, maybe we pray 'through' the saints instead of 'to' the saints. I'm not sure. I have never understood the Trinity.
thank you for this episode Sir Gavin. many of the church here in Qatar does not recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is important. they think they know it but they differ in the interpretation in reality. we have a lot of people practicing Hinduism here. when you ask them about their "Trinity". they will answer the same way.
Also Gavin I apriciate your humble bookshelf. You don't need to show off all your books, people who listen to you can tell your well read. I am not passing judgment on anyone with the bookshelf but I've always worried it may come across as showing off and intimidate young scholars who are just getting started or people who are unable to read as much as they would like.
"The Father and I are one".
Nothing to do with Filioque
Completely irrelevant to this discussion.
@@theodosios2615 But how does 'the Father and I are one' relate to the Trinity?
@@butterflybeatles consubstantial ity
Gavin you need to step up your bookshelf game. By Golly! Fred's the winner of any I've seen
Truth DOES unite. (Faiths divide.)
Someone should ask Gavin if the Filioque is an "accretion". If not, why not.
His guest does address this, starting at 14:00.
Hey Gavin, been watching your videos for a while now. Using your videos to study topics about early church and much more.
I recently came across a video by David Erhan titled “Icon Veneration is CLEARLY Christian”. A few people are making comments about how you don’t want to respond to that video or that you wont talk about some of the evidence he mentioned in the video.
I wanted to ask if you could maybe address some of his points in a video, because he does raise some good ones. I have my view on the matter but i, and many more, would really appreciate seeing you address what David Erhan is presenting to us as a solid case for icon veneration.
As always, thank you so much for your honest work. God bless you and your family. May the Grace of our Lord be with you🙏🏽
Thanks for the support! I watched the first 10 or 15 minutes of that video and was not too impressed. What do you think is his strongest argument?
@@TruthUnites To begin, I wanted to say that his video seemed to be a direct response to your icon veneration video. I’m saying this based on his title, the structure and order of his arguments, and the way he broke down some of the arguments made in your own video against icon veneration.
He started off his video by defining what icon veneration is and clarifying the idea that, “To prove that icon veneration is an early church and a biblical practice, one must showcase that the principles of such practice were present rather than trying to give evidence that icons were being venerated in the first century”. I do agree with the claim stated above by David Erhan because this is the exact approach we used to prove and clarify something as important as the Trinity.
I'm also only going to be addressing some of his rebuttals to your arguments and some of the Pre-Nicene claims he proposed, these were the ones that caught my attention the most and caused me to question some of the arguments in your video.
1. In Minicius Felix’s Octavius, Felix mentions in his dialogue between the christian and the pagan, that the christians don’t have altars, temples, or images. David Erhan claims that this mention of altars, temples, and images was about the pagan way of using them. He claims this because of the fact that christian did have altars and temples at this time in history, he uses a quote from Origen to prove that (Origen Control Celcum, Book VIII, Ch.20): “There is no comparison between our statues and the statues of the heathen, nor between our altars with what we may call the incense ascending from them, and the heathen altars, with the fat and blood of the victims; nor, finally, between the temples of senseless gods, admired by senseless men, who have no divine faculty for perceiving God, and the temples, statues, and altars which are worthy of God.” (Min 23 in his video)
2. Tertullian believed that every image was idolatrous and also died as a heretic believing some foreign doctrines about God. David claims “Why would we listen to what this man has to say about icons, considering he’s a heretic and known for making extreme claims about any image”? Tertullian also claimed the Bronze Serpent and the Cherubims that God commanded to build were acceptable, contradicting himself with previous claims of idolatrous images. David claims this to be a logical fallacy (Min 29 in his video)
3. Clement of Alexandria, like Tertullian, opposed all forms of images. He said the works of art cannot be holy, though even the 7th Council agrees secular artistry is not holy. However, unlike Tertullian, he didn't contradict himself and instead allegorized the imagery of the Cherubim, a position that is unbiblical and ahistorical. David then goes on to explain how Clement changes his position on the matter in his “The Instructor”. Clement says these images are allowed for practical reasons and “for the sake of safety”. (Min 33 in his video)
4. David also mentions that “The Gelasian Decree” was a decree that condemned many of the early church witnesses who wrote against iconography listing, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, and Clement of Alexandria. I personally couldn't find anything online about this. (Min 20 in his video)
Quick Pre-Nicene evidence he mentions (Min 55 - 75 in his video)
1. Eusebius of Caesarea writes about how a miraculous statue of Jesus healing the bleeding women from Luke 8:40 was built in some village he visited. He writes about people being healed after touching, kissing, and venerating the statue. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 7, Ch.18).
2. Sophronius of Jerusalem writes about walking into a church and bowing down, praying, and venerating an icon of Jesus. He prays to Jesus through this icon for the healing of some young man in the church with him. (Sophronius of Jerusalem, Miracles of Cyrus and John, Pg 87.3557C - 3560c)
3. The catacombs of St-Callixtus (180-220 AD) and the Dura Europos synagogue (244 AD) both had images in liturgical locations.
Once again Gavin, thank you for all the honest and hard work you do for Christ and his followers.
@@ForgivenDoomer thanks -- here from your other comment prompting me. Ah yes, I remember him trying to use Origen in that way -- this was one of the points that made me think it didn't merit a response, if I recall correctly. It is a misreading of Origen. See my video "Icon Veneration in the Early Church? Response to Craig Truglia" starting at 11:04. I deal with some of these other examples in that video. I won't go through all these points here but I do want to address your comment that "this is the exact approach we used to prove and clarify something as important as the Trinity." I would not agree. Nicaea 2 explicitly references the acts of bowing, kissing, lighting candles, etc. and the theology of figural representation, and claims these are apostolic tradition. I addressed this more in my recent response to Seraphim Hamilton. The apostles either bowed down to icons or they didn't. Nicaea 2 says they did. That is not comparable to the Trinity, which is a doctrine that grows in understanding but the basic idea (and practices like Trinitarian baptism, Matt. 28:19) are there right away, straight from the mouth of Christ. Hope that helps.
@@ForgivenDoomer Hey Friend! In addition to everything Gavin said here, I've done a lot of homework on Erhans video, and like Gavin I was unimpressed. Are you on discord by chance?
@@TruthUnites i will definitely check out the videos you referenced. Yes this was a great help, thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. Looking forward to your next book!🙏🏽
Revalation 22.1 Shows the Holy Spirit flowing (proceeding)from the throne of God and the Lamb. In Western theology, the Father is the first principal in the Trinity. That is, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, that is everything the Son has is received from the Father. The Father and Son jointly Spirate(the manner of the procession)the Holy Spirit.
@brianingram4709
Thank you! This verse is the key in the discussion of the filioque.
Great passage to affirm the filioque thank you for sharing.
The phrasing should be "From The Father, through The Son".
Not east, nor west is 100% correct.
West include filipoque to prevent Arian heresy, and East deny filioque to prevent "two godheads" heresy.
Totally agree. That's actually the version I say in my church.
The Orthodox Church would be perfectly fine with that phrasing, since we're no longer saying the Holy Spirit procedes ontologically from the Son, but that's not the western position. West teaches that the Holy Spirit procedes from both Father and Son by means of spiration as the love between them.
Personally, I was taught that the truth lies in between the two. Strictly, I feel that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. So it is more related to the West although with a slight clarification although I'm no professional theologian.
The Filioque isnt about economia its about causation. Is the Son the source of the hypostasis of the Spirit or does that belong to Father alone. How you answer this question reveals your metaphysics of the triad. It might seem like both sides are saying the same thing but its really a fairly serious difference and thats why there is so much division over it
Exactly!
It upsets the monarchy of the father, and probably has a lot to do with the strange individualism of the west.
And 99% of Christians could care less about the metaphysics of the triad. Nobody truly understands how the trinity works and if you are getting so worked up about the minutiae you come off as triumphalist.
There’s not really any major difference with Orthodox today on this issue. It’s a non issue for the most part. The major issue is authority.
Eastern Catholics many are Orthodox who came back to the Church. There’s about 250M of them. They are just fine with the Filioque
@@catholicguy1073 RC forever claiming that the difference between Orthodox Catholics and the latins is nominal. NOPE.
I'm sure I am not as well read as Sanders, but I have been looking into Eastern Orthodoxy a lot for about a year and a half now. I don't think I have ever read or heard an Orthodox Christian say that everything they disagree with regarding Roman Catholicism or Protestantism stems from the filioque, as Sanders seems to indicate in the "bad blood" section of the conversation.
Yeah, I think the filioque is overemphasized. There are bigger areas of disagreement with the East. I know, I was Greek Orthodox all my life and converted to Lutheranism last year.
I always heard the Filioque is at the core of the disagreement between East and West when and since the years I seriously investigated Eastern Orthodoxy.
I agree that protestants have a unique role they can play between East and West on this topic. You guys nailed it when discussing procession “through” the Son. This goes back to at least Maximos in the East. If this is what is meant by filioque, there is no issue. The trouble is Florence: The Son is along with the Father the source, cause, and principle of the Spirit. One of my grievances with Protestants is that they always say they affirm the filioque, but then explain that it can be understood as through the Son rather than from the Father and the Son as if one source. Why instead don’t they EVER say that we REJECT the filioque as dogmatized by Florence when this is the rub? The issue is not whether it can be affirmed in some sense, but rather that it cannot be affirmed in the way dogmatized by the Latin Church, which is the cause of continued schism.
The Catholic Church uses the word through as being acceptable
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
Session 6-6 July 1439
[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
[EWTN COM /catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461]
@Emie-f3g 💯
Thanks Gavin, very interesting conversation. I wonder whether the Filioque unconsciously influenced Calvin's confidence in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper via Pneumatology. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then we can expect that the Spirit can communicate Christ and his benefits in this way. Fred Sanders is great and gave an excellent paper at the Scottish Dogmatics conference recently.
I believe that the Spirit procedes from the Father but THROUGH the Son
If the Trinity is the key to the gospel and salvation, how could it be classified as "need to know information"? If God is withholding the Trinity when revealing himself, whether in the OT or NT, he would thereby withholding the key to salvation. 45:06
Hey Dr Ortlund, i would love to hear your thoughts on whether you would sign the Evangelicals and catholics together document if it took place in 2024!
And finally, I really think that anyone who wants to interact on this topic ecumenically really needs to read Edward Siecienski's book. Maybe you all have, I don't know. If not I recommend it. I think it's very balanced.
One's salvation depends not, on ones understanding of the relationship between the Son and the Father.. unless one does not know the distinctions
3:05 “In one sense, I have *pride* of ownership; I made it up *myself* from Scripture.” The Catholic Church teaches that pride is a sin; further, pride is the Queen of All Vices; pride is the primary sin of the devil himself. Pride is a vice; humility is a virtue. God revealed Himself in the Trinity, and this guy takes *pride* in “making up the Trinity.” He’s trying to take ownership of something God Himself did. ❤
Eesh. He was kidding.
There is a positive sense of "pride" and a negative sense of pride. Otherwise you could never be happy or excited about anything you do, and that would be a miserable way to live your life. Also, beware of false humility.
Surely don't ever tell anyone you're proud of them for accomplishing things...
@@thomasprefontaine5023 No; you should not do that. Are you “proud” of Jesus’s crucifixion? If your children are amazing, be thankful to God. You can be pleased with any good work you do, but being “proud” means taking ownership of someone else’s accomplishments. For example, a parent proud of their children make take credit for the good things their kids do, when they have no right. If the children are great; it’s despite the parents, not because of them. All good comes from God; and all evil comes from us. The best way a parent can car for their child is to teach them about God and how to rely on God more than your parents. Proud parents infantilize their children by taking ownership of all the actions of a child, which is appropriate for children, but not appropriate for adults. As far as young children go, be pleased with their good behavior, never proud. Pride is the primary sin of the devil; and he loves pride-hence, why the devil promotes “pride month.” But, if you are prepared to defend pride, I know a demon that’s happy to join you. Angels were created to serve man, despite being superior in basically every way. The devil, in his pride, refused to serve who he thought were inferior creatures. An Angel who refuses to serve his purpose becomes a demon. God advises us to be humble and confident. ♥️
@@LLR707 Pride and humility are antonyms. Humility is objectively always a virtue; and pride is objectively always a vice. If you mean a different word than pride, use a different word. “Pleased” perhaps?
Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as immanent from them both, or immanent from the Father but economic from the Son, we can say that the Holy Spirit has a relationship with both and in some sense does proceed to us from both. Given that there isn’t explicit clarity in the Bible over the Filioque, it seems that it can be something we allow to ultimately be a mystery and not create church schisms over it.
What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to "proceed"? Did they explain this?
It seems based upon the Orthodox on UA-cam, they don't want to have this conversation. Even though the filioque was understood and used by many early church Fathers, the Orthodox do not seem willing to even acknowledge this in any way. I have heard some of them say Maximus the Confessor did not mean what he said, they make an excuse for his view. My question is if the Arian heresy had never came about would the filioque be an issue.
Uhh
Orthodox yt channels are almost fixated on the filioque and in the early fathers it is very nieche and the orthodox are fine with 'the early church' talking about it because it deals with the mission of the HS not eternal manifestation. Early church speaks of one cause in the trinity speaking of the sending of the HS and that is Orthodox. The later filioque development mentions two causations which is the catholic understanding.
@Piranesi-gc8gn that is not correct. Council of Florence states The Holy Spirit is eternally from both Father and Son. The Holy Spirit shares the same divine nature as the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally in ONE "SPIRATION" from the Father and the Son as on "principle. This affirms the Father is the primary source from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, but the Spirit can not proceed void of the Son, because the Father and Son share the same divine nature. In reality it is just another excuse for some Orthodox to attack the west.
I feel that this isn't an issue of right or wrong. It's deciding if this is pertinent or not pertinent.
Great show, technically it’s all Greek to me but fascinating nonetheless. 👋
As a western Protestant I have to admit after studying this issue for some time, the Easter church appears to have got this right. Their argument seems iron clad: the Spirit’s procession from the Father is affirmed by Jesus, it’s in the original creed, the Father’s of the creed also held to it, and John of Damascus, who is considered the last of the Fathers also affirmed it “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.” The problem from my understanding is the council of Florence in the west argued that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as principal causes. I’ve also noticed a lot of western thinkers confuse the fathers on the Spirit’s procession between immanent vs. economic distinctions. Appreciate the video!
I’m with you. I’m Anglican but seriously explored Eastern Orthodoxy some years ago and came close to converting. To this day however I still strongly sympathize with the East on the Filioque issue. When I recite the Nicene Creed I always say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son”.
Seems like doctrinal hairsplitting to me. Imo, what matters is application in worship, and if you look at Western RCC/Anglicanism vs EO liturgies and spiritual practices, it's hard to see where this difference substantially plays out
As a layperson on this matter--Jesus' affirmation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father doesn't exclude it also proceeding from another person in the Trinity. Maybe I just don't understand
Most Western Protestants have borderline heretical trinity theology. And I say this as a Southern Baptist pastor.
@cyclqal That's correct. The filioque is not directly contradictory to the original Creed. But we can look at the additional context of the writings of the early Church Fathers to see what the clear Orthodox stance on this issue is. The Eastern Church is right on this one. The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father, not from the Son. The Holy Spirit is that which proceeds from the Father to beget the Son. If the Spirit proceeded *from* the Son, that would just make the Son the Father. It's a clear misunderstanding of the nature of the cooperation of the three persons of God.
34;03 I would suggest that, in order to de-escalate this controversy, that we go to Scripture alone.There has been far too much cherry picking of Patristic quotations that are taken out of context and overinflated. Scripture alone solved this issue for me and I have an Orthodox Study Bible in which I have highlighted every verse that I could find that speaks to this issue. The Filioque is overwhelmingly supported by Sacred Scripture.
Gavin needs to get back into his bookshelf game and keep up lol
I like the bookshelf too. The new setting seems vacuous.
"However, the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything".
The fact that confusion within the church increases with time rather than decreases makes me believe that there is no holy spirit in the church teaching people things.
Jesus specifically commanded us to pray exclusively to the Father in His (Jesus's) name. I have not seen anywhere in God's Word that praying to the Son or Spirit are indicated in any way.
It was addressed very briefly later on, but in the argument for the Filioque, is it not significant that the Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son (e.g. Romans 8)? I know if the last supper discourse the Spirit explicitly proceeds from the Father, yet is sent by both the Father and the Son. One might say the sending is only economic, not ontological. But it seems to necessarily go deeper to affirm that He is the Spirit of the Son as well as the Spirit of the Father.
It seems like this shouldn't be as big of an issues as it is, given that it seems that reasonable arguments can be made either way and both sides can fit within the label "Christian." It also seems to me that this issue often serves as a flag for different groups to rally around and use to distinguish themselves from the other side. Something that I think about a lot when it comes to theological issues (especially the more nerdy ones) is that they often seem to overlap with other issues and groups (social, political, cultural, etc). Not that this invalidates them!
This might be the case if it wasn't for the monarchia of the Father held to by the East. I think this is the main reason we have to stand against the filioque so strongly. Since this is mostly forgotten or abandoned by the West it makes sense that they wouldn't see it as such a big issue.
The "Filioque" controversy is not and has never been a purely theological issue. It has historically been used as a much cherished rationalization for the Orthodox Churches continued separation from Rome. They have made it such that for them to accept the Filioque is now to reject the claim of the Orthodox Churches to be the One, True Church.
They have, in many ways, institutionalized their rejection of this Scripturally sound doctrine. One need only look at the conversations and discussions on the many videos to observe this. You will rarely find an Orthodox commentator who is willing to even admit that the Filioque is , at best, even arguable.
I like this video because Protestants have no Ecclesiological baggage to box themselves into regarding the origin of the Holy Spirit. Scripture alone is the way.
Sorry, I reject your analysis. The Orthodox Church strongly believes in the unity of the Church. It was happy to go back into communion with the Popes after the fuss with Photius. It was actually the Franks who were desperate to find accurse the Byzantines of heresy so they could assume leadership of Christendom.
We just want to follow the wishes of Pope Leo III and keep the Creed unchanged. In 1054 Humbert accused the Byzantines of 'deleting' the filioque and in the 1270s the Popes sent enforcers to get the Byzantines to add the filioque in Greek even though they had earlier stated that union didn't mean that.
You will find Papal aggression is a much bigger issue than the filioque for us Orthodox.
Is this the same Fred Sanders that created the 'Doctor Doctrine' comics?
Jesus said, I will give you another helper, he will take what is mine and give it to you. Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit, John 16. I’m not saying the Father isn’t giving it. Jesus said, I and the Father are one.
While this has always been an interesting topic I don't think that the differing views on the subject were the major reason for the divide. The rapid centralization and expansive growth of the Western Church was tremendous during this time. The Eastern church remained strong in only smaller, more localized communities. Political ideas, views on Church "direction" and geographic separation all contributed to the divide.
.
Evidence that Fred is a great scholar: he said "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" without stumbling.
So two persons in the trinity have an ontological property that the spirit lacks, namely the begetting/procession of a divine person? Does the scripture not say:
John 15:26 (KJV)
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you FROM the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDED FROM the Father, he shall testify of me:
Sending the spirit is something different from being the personal origin of the spirit. The bible never claims such a thing concerning the son in relation to the spirit.
I agree with this 👍🏻
I guess I have essentially the same question when I ask what does "Proceed From" mean? Is it who gave the Divine directive or where did the Spirit originate?
@@yvichenj333 as the fathers say, procession relates to the hypostatic, or personal origin of the spirit, the unique coming forth from the father.
@@yvichenj333this is actually answered by the Greek so far as I can tell. The word is: εκπορευοται which means the "go out/come from" kind and appears to specifically carry a "locational" connotation rather than possessive/characteristic kind. It seems likely, especially given that Jesus right before says HE (Jesus) will "send the Holy Spirit from/with/by the Father", that Jesus is comparing the words and using them similarly but oppositely. Jesus will go to the Father, which we know is where He goes when He ascends, which is also where the Holy Spirit is (with the Father). And the Holy Spirit "goes out from/comes from" the Father. Within the context, the most natural reading is simply, "where the Father is, the Holy Spirit is also, and when I go there, I (Jesus) will send Him to you from where the Father is." Taking it any further than that into origins (at least in this John verse) just seems to go too far and read into things something neither in the Greek (originates/sole possession of) nor the context. My two cents looking at the underlying Greek words.
Exactly!
Does anyone know when or if the filioque was added to the Athanasian creed? I know Athanasius didn't write it and it's a western creed, but in just curious.
@Emie-f3g I actually watched it about a couple weeks ago. It was really good!
Actually, the Scriptures, i.e., God told us about prayer to the Holy Spirit in Hesekiel 37:9 and Matthew 9:38-39 and Acts 13:1-2 as reference. Additionally, we are to have fellowship with the Holy Spirit (2. Corinthians 13:14). I suppose that fellowship is to take place on a constant, regular basis, but how can we have fellowship with someone without directly communicating with that person?
Loved this. Been thinking about this topic a lot lately. Would’ve loved to hear Dr Sanders explore it in more depth. I’ve been wrestling with a few Eastern Orthodox objections.
For instance, how does a double-spiration not result in two Spirits?
If Spirit is distinguished from Father and Son by the process of spiration itself, and if he spirates from two origins, is that not two spirations and thus two Spirits? Or is it ultimately only one spiration but somehow in two directions? If the latter, wouldn’t the father still be the only real origin of the Spirit? What then is added by the filioque? Is it still relevant?
The way I usually see people explain this relationship is not exactly in terms of spiration, so I'm not sure if my input will be relevant to your question. Maybe this won't help at all, but I'll respond anyway, lol. But I don't think there's any reason to assume that two breaths would necessarily result in two Spirits as opposed to the coincidence (as in coming together, I don't mean that it's accidental) of the two breaths generating one Spirit. The way I have recently seen it described is that the Spirit *is* the love between the Father and the Son. The act or expression, the reality of that eternal love between Father and Son is, itself, a person. Something like that, I might not be conveying it well. I bring it up because I think that same kind of poetic explanation works equally if you want to describe it in terms of spiration.
Short version, I don't see why two breaths MUST equal two Spirits versus the two breaths coming together in the eternal generation of one Spirit. The certainty of that claim seems on shaky ground to me. It assumes a definitive knowledge of the inner "mechanics" of God, so to speak, that I don't see how we can rightfully claim.
@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny thank you.
You gave a good response. I am familiar with Augustine’s idea that the Spirit is the love that exists between the Father and the Son. While I am attracted to that idea (I see beauty in it), I am not entirely convinced. Mainly because it seems to diminish the personhood of the Spirit.
What does it mean that the Father’s “love” for the Son is a fully substantialized divine Person co-equal with himself? How can love be a person? Augustine uses analogies from human experience that I just don’t resonate with. I certainly don’t think of my love for my wife, or for my friend, as a separate personality between us.
Also, even if we grant Augustine’s idea, I don’t see how that escapes the objection, because an Eastern Orthodox believer could just as easily insist that the love of the Father for the Son is not the same act as the love of the Son for the Father. If it was, wouldn’t we have to admit that the Son is the same person as the Father? Since we say that the Son is not the Father, the love for the Son by the Father must be one act, and the love for the Father by the Son must be another, distinct act.
Perhaps, you might say, the love is a single act because the Father and the Son, while not the same person, are the same substance. In other words, the object of the love is the one, undivided substance, not the persons. But in that case, who is loving whom? Without a distinct subject and object, love cannot meaningfully exist. It wouldn’t be the Father’s love for the Son at all. If anything, it would be his love for himself. The one substance loving the one substance? How does that make sense?
I’m sure I’m wrong somewhere, but I haven’t found anything that can help me with these questions yet.
@@NomosCharis Thank you for your reply, and I apologize if my initial response was a bit unclear. My intent was not to say that the "Spirit is the personification of the shared love between Father and Son" idea was the answer to the original question you posed. I merely hoped that it might provide a useful comparative way of thinking about the double spiration issue. If it wasn't helpful, feel free to discard.
My main goal was to establish that we cannot possibly say with any degree of certainty that two spirations must, of necessity, result in two Spirits. There's simply nothing to base that argument on. One can assert it, but on what foundation?
The same objection applies with the hypothetical objection to the love example I used. We can't know, in God, that the act of Father loving Son and Son loving Father MUST result in two persons. There could be something intrinsic to God's nature/essence such that the meeting of those two eternal realities eternally generates the third person. The fact that human to human love isn't intrinsically personified in the same manner isn't a defeater because God is inherently unlike us.
Likewise, we also can't know definitively that two acts or feelings or what have you must necessarily have two distinct results. As an example, creation is clearly a joint act of the persons of the Trinity, but it resulted in one creation. The atonement was a joint act of the persons of the Trinity, but it was a single atonement.
Of course, those analogies are insufficient because God necessarily relates to all created things differently than to Himself. We just have nothing observable to compare the generation of the Spirit with. And if it's not absolutely clearly revealed in Scripture, then I don't feel safe to be dogmatic about it to the point of exclusion. Granted, in this case I think scripture is clear. The Spirit is said to be sent by both Father and Son and is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Son (John 14:26, John 15:26, Acts 16:7, Galatians 4:6). But that might not be a convincing interpretation to someone else, and I'm not ready to anathematize them over the issue.
Anyway, I'm not sure how well I'm doing at conveying thoughts here, because I'm stuck typing it all on a phone and I kind of suck at that. But to wrap up, my main argument is that you can't make the assertion that two must necessarily equal two when He has revealed himself such that three equals one. Anyway, I hope that was edifying or helpful in some way, as I also enjoyed reading your reply. God bless, and I hope you find some answers!
@@PhrenicosmicOntogenyBut why should this sending be seen as ontological? We also see examples of the action being spirt to son rather than the other way. The spirt is said to be upon Christ in the synagogue, it descends at his baptism, and he refers to it glorifying him at his crucifixtion. The holy spirt comes down on the body of Christ at Pentecost and also when he gives gifts “as he wills”. It even incarnates Christ when it comes upon Mary. All of this jives pretty well with the eastern phrase that the spirt procedes from the father and rests upon the son. The western perspective is selective in reading what economic events are relevant to the ontological trinity
@@esoterico7750 Apologies if my intent was unclear, but I did not mean that the "sending" of the Spirit must be seen as related to ontological "origination," so to speak. Mentioning the sending language was only to point out how it's stated. It's said in such a way that it would be correct to state the sending of the Spirit was an action of both Father and Son. I agree that this doesn't have to be, and likely isn't, about generation or spiration. However, the Holy Spirit is directly called the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7, Philippians 1:19), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11), and the Spirit of the [His] Son (Galatians 4:6) in like manner as He is called the Spirit of the [your] Father (Matt 10:20). That does imply ontological origination, and that particular relationship is never reversed such that the Son is "of the Spirit" in a similar way.
So, the Holy Spirit is described to be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, and to be equally sent by both Father and Son. That's enough for me. But I never intended any of that to be definitive. My point wasn't that you MUST understand the text like I do. But it's certainly not an unreasonable conclusion to come to. I was only stating the position I find most compelling.
Your accusation of "selective reading" is your opinion, not fact. More importantly, it's unhelpful to the conversation. I can just as readily make the same assertion about your view. That you've supported your existing beliefs by reading the Eastern view into the texts, ignoring whatever doesn't fit. And further, that the Western view nicely comports with an accurate and holistic reading of all the relevant passages. But the bare fact of me saying so doesn't make these things true anymore than you asserting your view makes it true. And such claims add nothing substantive to the topic under discussion.
I believe the Western position to to be (at least more) correct on this one issue. However, I'm not simply reading a few passages I like to support a conclusion I already had. As of today, I'm convinced the Western view makes more sense of ALL the related texts but, beyond that, I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't actually care which side has the correct answer. I'm not bound to either side in any way. In fact, I didn't even know this was an issue, much less a controversial one, until maybe a year ago. I never had an opinion on it before then. At the end of the day, I'd be just as happy if the Eastern view is correct as if the Western view is. Or if the most correct answer turned out to be some other view entirely, for that matter. You and anybody else are always more than welcome to disagree with me, of course. I'm not going to be dogmatic about this specific issue, and I'm certainly unwilling to fling around anathemas because of it.
How are the Cappadocians classified as "early"? That's like calling Ronald Reagan a Founding Father of the US.
I think of the Holy Spirit as the SuperServant: He serves the Father and Son - and in and through us.
Whelp you should probably stop making stuff like that up on your own.
Sadly your understanding of the Trinity is wrong. All are coequal.
If the Holy spirit proceeds from the Son, why do we read in Mathew 3:
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
It seems to me that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at this moment and it did not proceed from him.
Faith in the death by crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ saves a man’s soul. As Christians, we must emanate Christ regarding every walk of life. Thus, just as Joseph and Mary consecrated Jesus in the Temple of God when He was a child, so must we consecrate our children in Church. However, understand that this act of faith did not require water baptism, and that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist during His adulthood to receive the Holy Spirit from His Father. Therefore, so must we at our age of maturity be water baptized in the holy name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by consciously repenting to be saved. Otherwise, just as faith without works is dead, what purpose does baptism serve without willful repentance?
The huge flaw in the pro-filioquist argument is that the same logic isn't applied to the relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. The argument goes that the Son must have some causality in the procession of the Holy Spirit because of the unity of the Godhead with the same 'ousia' but by that logic the Holy Spirit plays a role in the generation of the Son. Of course, no Latin theologian claims that!
The Holy Spirit is the abstraction of the relationship between Father and Son. What is this relationship? It is holy and it is spiritual. In this sense the Holy Spirit retroactively can be said to produce the Father and the Son in the sense that he is their synthesis.
What you guys call the original Nicene- Constantinople Creed was altered the first time.
It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.
According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.
- Catholic Answers
I consider myself protestant but after considering this for a while and listening to EO Christians explain their viewpoint I've become conviced that the filioque is incorrect. The argument that convinced me is if 2 members of the trinity share a property that the 3rd member doesnt have then youve created a new category of property different than hypostatic property and essence property, so the trinity goes from being 3 and 1, to 3 and 2 and 1. I would have liked if that argument was addressed, cause I think most EO Christians would say that's their strongest argument.
Big fan of the show otherwise, but if I had to bet the filioque is an error and muddies the mind when thinking about the trinity. Understanding why the filioque is an error can give you a lot of insight into the category distinctions of hypostatic and essence properties, because if the filioque is true then we are describing a property of the Father and Son that is neither of those and must be some other type of property.
The flip side is this: if the spirit just proceeds from the father, then what makes the Son and Spirit different? To say one is spirated and the other is begotten are just terms that mean different things to a certain group but otherwise can be substituted for each other, to everyone else.
@@Brainboxreview But those are the terms the Scriptures and Tradition gives us. St. Gregory the Theologian basically says that we can’t really know what “begotten” “unbegotten” or “proceeds” actually mean because they are just signs that point to who God is. It’s sufficient simply to use the distinction the Scripture and Tradition gives us and not invent further distinctions.
@@garrett2514 exactly the distinctions are purely nominal IF we go by the EO paradigm. There aren’t any real distinctions between the Son and the Spirit. Secondly, if you’re gonna talk about tradition, the concept that the EOs use to describe the relation between the Son and the Spirit is called Eternal Manifestation or Energetic Procession. This is found no where among the patristics till the 13th century
@@BrainboxreviewI'm personally agnostic on the Filioque question, but I think your "If they're both from the Father alone there's no way to distinguish a real difference" argument against the EO position is not good.
This is like arguing that there is no difference between a son and a daughter because they have the same parents. Or that we can't distinguish said son and daughter because they have the same parents. Things can have the same origin, and yet have different properties and identities.
That being said your point on the patristics is a stronger one.
@@Brainboxreview Just because we can’t conceptualize the difference doesn’t mean that the distinction is purely nominal. And I was quoting a Church Father, not someone to disregard unnecessarily.
Eternal manifestation is simply one way to describe the “through the Son language” and it’s not a dogmatic way to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Arians could say the same thing about “homoousia.” It’s a development in language, not doctrine.
Hey, Gavin! Do you think you will make a video on why you hold to a non-pacifist position? Me and others would like to hear your arguments.
My summation of this topic. Though I'm not Orthodox, I'm with them on this one.
Eastern Orthodox Trinitarian Theology:
God is One:
Our Father
God is Triune:
Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis)
One in Essence (Ousia)
The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is shared and expressed by the Three Divine Persons
The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche"
The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created
By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God
By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God
Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father
Economically, "Energetically", Providentially toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests
In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father
All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit
And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment
(the Eastern view of "simplicity" also differs to the Western One. The Eastern Orthodox would see that God both intends and manifests - by His Mind and Will (which are "really" and not simply "conceptually" distinct from Nature and Person also) and manifests distinct Attributes and Activities / Energies to distinct people and circumstances... though it is equally true to say that they are of the one Divine Uncreated Energy)
✌️💚🙏
Which denomination are you?
@@Bbos2383 I've been part of most denominations, and in non-denominational charismatic circles over the last 40 years. I will probably be received into the Orthodox at some point - when present poor health and a change of locality allows. I am simply a Christian.
Baptist Church atm when I can get there. (T.M.I) Lol... Life story not asked for...
My issue with procession and begotten is how are they co-eternal if one comes from the other and especially if the spirit comes from the father and son? Then again the mystery of God is great, so i don't know if this really answerable.
I don't know if this will help but this is how I think about it:
Since they are all one substance, even if either of the persons of the Trinity are "begotten" or "proceed" from the Father, this wouldn't be an issue because that substance cannot be superior or inferior to itself. If it were, then the Father would not be God.
Could you please go through ecclesial,historical objections to eternal security? Critics say the early church fathers didn’t support it.
I wish he would make a video on it. I stopped holding to eternal security, and one of the reasons was exactly that. Or course scripture was more important, but that too. I really wish he does.
The filioque controversy is a very strong argument for Protestantism.
I'm curious, How so?
@@tymon1928For one thing we have not anathematized or excommunicated whole swaths of other Christians, so we have fewer barriers between us and our dialogue partners. Also, since we believe the church can err and subsequently be corrected, we are always open to reexamining and refining or even reforming our beliefs as we listen to the arguments put forth by others in the light of Holy Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
@Emie-f3g I would agree. The Councils are certainly another example of the Church refining its doctrine in the face of error. Protestantism has more in common with the Councils than the heresies that brought the Councils about.
@Emie-f3g Protestants don’t reject Church authority. They reject theological error. And since the Church can err, they look to the testimony of Holy Scripture to discern the truth.
I don't think a discussion on the Filioque is complete without mentioning St. Maximus the Confessor.
A lot of the disagreement comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the Greek having separate words for "proceed and causes" or just "proceed" Specifically Maximus the Confessor letter to the priest Marinus
“With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias). . .
“One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”
Curious how you'd respond to the idea that the filioque is an unbiblical accretion. It seems to me that John 15:26, in all likelihood, does not support the eternal procession of the Spirit, but refers more to the mission of the Spirit (cf. Carson's commentary, Keener's commentary, and other modern commentaries). The idea of the Spirit "proceeding" from the Father is not indicative of the ontology of the Godhead, but rather alludes to the "pouring out" of the Spirit from prophetic literature. Why accept the idea of eternal procession/generation at all? Is there any biblical support for this at all?
Many eastern Catholic churches who are under Pope and are Orthodox in nature don't say Filioque, shows inclusive nature of Catholic Church.
er.. the Roman Church imposed it in the first place and persecuted anyone who didn't affirm it. They've gotten softer since Vatican II, but I think your assertion is a bit off the mark.
@@simontemplar3359
My comment said some Eatern Catholic were and still NOT saying Filioque. They are not persecuted. Filioque was added to do away with heresy spreading in wetern Europe. Now its generally percieved nothing wrong in it.
Shun your hatred and pray for unity.
I’ve heard RC communes Orthodox people. Between that end eastern rite it seems like they pretty much just concede the east is right.
@@bobbobberson5627 That’s true. RC also says EO has valid sacraments.
@@bobbobberson5627
Catholic Church incorporates not only east but also many rites. There are 23 Churches with varied rites come under Rome, as long it doesn't hurt core teachings of the curch. Dont you like this inclusiveness ?
The Orthodox are wrong about the filioque, but the West was wrong to both change the Nicene Creed unilaterally and excommunicate Constantinople for not agreeing with it.
Is God the Son superior to God the Spirit? Wonder how you read Matthew 4:1 when thinking on this question
Read the Tower of Babel. They were trying to WORK their way to heaven and MAKE A NAME for themselves. They were scattered and confused.
Why are Christians SCATTERED.
"For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."- Philippians 2:21.
So its litterally just
From father and son.
Or from the father through the son...
I dont see the issue. Perse. It seems just a slightly different view of senantics...
Well, on a surface level, it may seem so, but I would say that there is a difference in the two views and leads to different conceptions on the trinity. I haven't watched the whole video so im not sure if this is addressed, but there were also significant political and echlesial reasons the schism.
There isn't a prayer to the Holy Spirit in scripture?
Can you show me a prayer to the Trinity?
Gavin is there anyway you could answer something that Alex O’ Conner asked in his debate with Dinesh? Alex had said that the Bible says that the Earth was made before the sun, while science says the opposite. This has really been bugging me.
45;53 The Spirit does not "send" the Son into the wilderness. He "drives" Jesus into the wilderness or He "leads" him into the wilderness. This is not the same as "sending". This basically means that Jesus was driven by the Divine Love which the Holy Spirit is.
The 381 creed is itself an addition to the creed, so if that one is okay, why not add another truth? The west and east simply put different meaning into the words, and in actuality they don't even disagree, and this has been figured out in recent ecumenical dialogue. They still disagree whether the addition to the creed is a problem, but not actually in the theology, which they assumed to for a thousand years.
The point is not that creeds can't be changed, it's that they would need to be changed concilarly, as Chalcedon did to Nicea. A pope or a local council can't do it..
@@kgrant67 Language, concepts, meaning and modes of thinking and relating the world does change over time.
The changes in the outside world will force changes in the church, and those changes do not happen evenly, either in space or time.
Nope. Ecclesiology is theology.
An Eastern Orthodox Christian cannot "concede" on this or even "de-escalate" without compromising his Orthodox faith. I don't say this to be difficult, but this isn't an issue of opinion or personal inclination. This is a core issue and is not one that the Orthodox will back away from. Again: not fighting words, just simply stating the facts.
Does any else find it interesting that when sola scriptura folks address this issue, the last thing they want to do is read the scriptures. And, the pathetic part is that they don’t even care. They have no hint of embarrassment, much less shame, about it.
One of many Theological ideas that confuse and devide the people of God I think. As far as I'm aware there is no doctrine, dogma that is universally agreed among Prodistants, Catholics, East Orthodox believers. One thing that unites us is a general looking to Jesus, trusting in Him & trusting in what he has done for our salvation. Apart from this general gospel message all other Theological details is your guess is a good as mine. No devintive Theological "truth" / doctrine that brings agreed catholic unity. (Even Vatican 2 splits the Roman Catholic church ) That's my thoughts speaking as a confused ecumenical doubting believer attending an Anglican church for many years.... My religion was once Reformed many years ago and now I have ecumenical faith in Jesus not belonging to a particular tribe / denomination. Please pray for me and the church for clarity and unity.
The Christian argument about this appears so ridiculous (as a cause of schism and anathema) when you're also insisting that the three are one God from eternity. This kind of doctrinal debate really puts the belief in genuine divine oneness at risk.
I honestly forgot this guy wasn’t Catholic part way through.
This is probably one of the least important debates in Christian theology lol
Luke 9
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
Matthew 16:24
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mark 8:34
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it;
but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake
and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Short answer, yes. This is one of the easiest doctrines to prove against eastern Orthodox in my opinion.
So two persons in the trinity have an ontological property that that the spirit lacks, namely the begetting of a divine person?
Does the scripture not say:
John 15:26 (KJV)
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you FROM the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDED FROM the Father, he shall testify of me:
Sending the spirit is something different from being the personal origin of the spirit. The bible never claims such a thing.
If it's so easy, then make your case.
@@zzzzppppoooooThe Holy Spirit has the same property, the reason the Spirit does not "produce" another Divine Person is that there are only 2 modes of procession(intellect and will).
Revelation 22:1 says that the river of the water of life(which is identified as the Holy Spirit in both the New and the Old testament) proceeds from the throne of the throne of God AND of the Lamb. Revelation 22:1 uses the same Greek word that John 15:26 uses for proceeding (ekporeuomai). If you want to say Revelation 22:1 is about economic procession, one could argue the exact same thing about John 15.
@@thenewhope123 were are you getting only two modes of procession, and hiw does that relate to the spirit.
So are you saying the spirit possesses the ability to originate a divine person? What is the hypostatic or personal marker of the Father, if not to be source fount and origin, as the fathers say?
@@zzzzppppooooo God is a pure Spirit/Mind, therefore he does not have a bunch of different faculties like we do. The Mind consists of an intellect and a will, which are the only two faculties by which God could proceed. This is a short explanation of this topic:
ua-cam.com/video/tpxk3jCcVis/v-deo.htmlsi=fb_KxLBMy32awywn
Not sure what you're referring to in the other part of your response, but we do affirm that Father is the unprincipled principle or the uncaused cause.
When this issue was at its height the men that debated it were nowhere near anything that would resemble a Protestant.
Why would they be? The abuses and accretions of the medieval church had not occurred yet.
It's more important to think of qualities than of quantities. The oneness of God is the oneess of everything, the foundation, the unity, the order, the integration and precenae of all in all. Of this great unity there is and can be only one. The threeness of the persons of God is the thing that enables there to still be movement, giving, receiving, community, life, and even stability.
One can in theory read the trinity our of the properties of reality.
It's not simply some sentences to remember, it's deeply interwoven with the fabric of everything and how we exist in it. No one said it was about mathematics. No one said God is describable. We only know from the entirity of human experience what the quality of one, two and three is. The objects we sometimes count, are intellectual constructs, nothing exists in isolation in actuality.
Counting is a tool we use to grasp some things, but we always loose something else by this method.
We shouldn't expect a priory our way of thinking in objects separate, to be applicable to absolute fundamental reality. It's just not reasonable to begin with.
This is an observation (which may be incomplete): it is interesting that Protestants, which hold to Sola Scriptura, accept the filioque instead of holding tight to the words of Jesus in the Scriptures Who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Since there is controversy with history and theologizing, it seems they would choose to rise above that and hold to the text of Scripture. I think there is something deeper going on there, but it is an interesting observation.
Could it possibly be that there is no prayer to, worship given, praise to, songs to, veneration of, bowing towards etc... the holy spirit because the holy spirit is not a distinct individual person?
He is literally referred to as a person in multiple ways. He can speak, be spoken to and listen, repeats what He hears, He has emotions, He is distinct from the Father and Son while being equated to God in His identity, and He fully shares Their divine name.
Did Christ establish a kingdom or a book?
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, AND THE SON, Jesus would not have needed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Essentially it's saying that God baptized Jesus by Jesus.