Why I Do Not Profess the Filioque: Part 1

I came across this article the other day via my friend Chuck's blog (here).

In this article Ben Myers defends Protestant use of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Over the next few posts I will attempt to defend my position as to why I do not profess the filioque as a Christian.

Although I'm sure I'll address some of Myers concerns I don't think I'll spend much time picking apart his arguments. Rather, I intend to spend time discussion the development and the potential ramifications of this doctrine and why I find it to be erroneous.

From the outset I should note that much of my thoughts will be adapted from my paper "The Filioque Controversy: An Historical and Theological Analysis" written in 2007. I will try to condense things but will still strive to be true to my sources and cite them when necessary (even though I don't know how to do footnotes on a blog).

To start off the discussion let me just briefly define what is meant by "filioque."

In the 325 the Nicene Creed was birthed as the primary definitive statement of belief for the Christian at the council of Nicea. Since this time, the Nicene Creed (slightly clarified at the council of Constantinople) has remained the chief confession for Christians (even more popular than the apostles creed until the rise of various protestant usage).

In the Nicene Creed is a statement: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father..."

There is however, a much later western tradition (which we will analyze later) that professes the Nicene Creed as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father and the Son..." This phrase "and the Son" is what is meant by "filioque."

While it may seem like this small phrase is something inconsequential we must realize that the theological implications of this phrase are huge. The Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western Church in 1054 was, after all, mostly due to this tiny little phrase.

- Ben