Tag: Filioque Clause

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to explain both the Athanasian Creed and Eastern Orthodoxy by comparing them. It first analyzes and summarizes the Athanasian Creed (AC), excluding its ‘anathemas’ at the beginning and the end, and also excluding the section on incarnation, and then compares this summary to the ‘Monarchy of the Father’ of the Eastern Orthodox Church, using particularly the Catechism of the Orthodox Faith and a talk on the Trinity by the well-known Fr. Thomas Hopko. 

The Earliest View

Eastern Orthodoxy claims to represent the Church’s earliest views. Christianity began in the East. Most theologians of the first centuries were in the Eastern Roman Empire:

“The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church.” (Hanson, p. 170) ¹R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

The Arian Controversy also began in the East. For example, only about 2% of the delegates at the Council of Nicaea in 325 were from the West. [Show More]

This article shows that the Athanasian Creed and Eastern Orthodoxy represent two camps in the fourth-century Arian Controversy. While the Western Church was predominantly pro-Nicene, the Eastern Church was mostly anti-Nicene (Arian). The main issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person. While the Arian Easterners maintained that He is, the Nicene Westerners believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. (See Article)

Later that century, the Cappadocian fathers became prominent in the East as a midway between the Eastern Arians and the Western Nicenes:

The Western Nicenes, since they believed that the Father and Son are a single Person, interpreted homoousios as ‘one substance’.

The Cappadocians also accepted the Nicene Creed. However, since they believed, like the Arians, that the Son is a distinct Person, they understood homoousios to say that the Father and Son are two distinct substances of the same type.

This resulted in the Meletian Schism; a fierce conflict between the Western Nicenes (Athanasius and his friends) and the Cappadocians (Basil of Caesarea and his friends). 

In 380, the emperors made Western Nicene theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed the previously dominant Eastern (Arian) theology. (See article) The religious organization subsequently formed within the Roman Empire (the Roman Church):

• • • Survived after Arian ‘barbarians’ took control of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century,
    • Was liberated in the sixth century by conquests by the Eastern Roman Empire,
    • Became politically very powerful during the next two century as the vehicle through which the Eastern emperors controlled the West (the Byzantine Papacy),
    • Sought other protectors after Muslim conquests neutralized the Eastern Roman Empire in the 8th century, and
    • Continued to become the Church of the Middle Ages.

Consequently, the Athanasian Creed and the Western Church today follow the tradition of the fourth-century Western Church. But the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to represent the original faith as believed by the first church.

Athanasian Creed (AC)

Not Athanasius’ Creed

The Athanasian Creed (AC) was not compiled by Athanasius or by a church council. It was formulated by unknown authors somewhere in the fifth or sixth centuries. Nevertheless, it became and remained the primary formulation of the Trinity doctrine throughout the Middle Ages and even until today.

The one God is the three Persons.

The Creed says that it does not confound the Persons but distinguishes between the three Persons. Nevertheless, “we worship one God in Trinity.” In contrast to the Nicene Creed, which identified the ‘one God’ as the Father, it identifies the ‘one God’ as the Trinity. [Show More]

One substance

In contrast to the term homoousios in the Nicene Creed, which means ‘same substance’ and which the Cappadocians understood as saying that Father and Son are two distinct substances of the same type (see Article), the Athanasian Creed uses the more specific phrase “nor dividing the essence,” which interprets homoousios as meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single undivided substance. 

Ontologically Equal

The Athanasian Creed describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as ontologically (in terms of substance) equal. Each is uncreated, unlimited, eternal, Almighty, God, and Lord. However, there are not three; only one God. [Show More]

The Father alone exists without cause.

In the Creed, none of the Persons are made or created. But there is one difference between them. While the Father exists without a cause, the Son and the Spirit received their existence from the Father. The Son was begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Although the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Ultimate Source remains the Father because the Father begat the Son. [Show More]

The Son is part of the Father.

In the Creed, the three Persons are one God and one undivided substance (“nor dividing the Substance”). Different church fathers believed this but explained the relationship between the three Persons and one God differently:

Second-century Monarchians (or Modalists) said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Being. That does not seem to be what the Creed intends for it identifies differences between the Three. For example, the Father begat the Son. So, while the Father has a Son, the Son does not have a Son. [Show More]

It seems as if the third-century Sabellians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of God. (See article)

Athanasius also taught that the Father and Son are a single Person. He did not believe, as in the traditional trinity doctrine, that God is one God in three Persons. In the Greek of the fourth century, he believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Specifically, he said that the Son is ‘in’ the Father. [Show More]

Since the Creed says that the three Persons are one undivided substance and that the Father is the Source and Origin of the Son and the Spirit, the ‘undivided substance’ is the substance of the Father. Since the substance remains undivided when the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, it is implied that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father’s substance.

Since that is also what Athanasius taught and if the Athanasian Creed is supposed to reflect Athanasius’ theology, it would be fair to conclude that, in the Creed, the Son and Spirit are part of the Father.

The Persons are equal.

Although the Creed says that the Father is the Ultimate Source, it continues to say that the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal. None is before or after or greater or less. [Show More]

Some argue that the Son and Spirit are equal in substance (ontologically) but subordinate in role or function. In the Athanasian Creed, however, they seem to be equal also in role: “None is greater, or less than another.”

Summary of the Creed

The Persons are co-eternal and co-equal. All three are infinite, eternal, and almighty. They are equal in Godhead, Glory, and Majesty. They are equal, not only ontologically but also functionally.

The Persons are one. They are one single Almighty God and Lord in one undivided substance.

The Persons differ, for the Father is the Source of the Son and Spirit. Therefore, the Father has a Son but the Son does not. To say that they are one but also differ seems like a contradiction.

The Creed seems to say that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father because (1) the Father is the Source of the Son and the Spirit and (2) the three Persons are one undivided substance.

Eastern Orthodoxy (EO)

The remainder of this article discusses Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) by comparing it to the Athanasian Creed:

The Father is the Ultimate Cause.

In EO, as in the AC, the Father is the Origin and Cause of all things, including the Son and the Spirit:

“God the Father is cause and origin of His Word (or Son) and Wisdom (or Holy Spirit)” (Catechism, question 90). [Show More]

The Spirit is from the Father alone.

While, in the AC, the Spirit is from the Father AND the Son, in EO, the Spirit is from the Father alone.

Jesus said that He will send the Spirit from the Father. (John 15:26) In the Creed of Constantinople of 381, the Spirit is from the Father alone. However, in the AC, “the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son.” (‘Filioque’ is the Latin for “and the Son.”) EO objects that this denies the principle that the Father is the ultimate cause and origin. In EO, the Spirit proceeds from God (the Father) alone. EO does not deny that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, but explains that the Spirit is Christ’s because the Father gave Him the Spirit:

“The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son because He proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. That is why we orthodox is against the filioque in the creed (‘and the Son’ – Athanasian Creed). … We claim that the Spirit of God does not proceed from the Father and the Son together.” (Hopko)

“So Jesus can say, ‘I will send you the Spirit’, because the Spirit is his Spirit, but it’s the Spirit of God that is in Jesus because he’s the Son of God. The Word of God and the Spirit of God are both of God. … The Father is the source of the Spirit and of the Son: the Son.” (Hopko)

The three Persons

For much of the Arian Controversy, the terms ousia (substance) and hypostasis (distinct existence, e.g., a person) were used as synonyms. (Read More) So, to say that they are three substances means that they are three distinct existences; three Persons.

Are distinct substances.

“There are three ‘Whos’; He who is the Father, He who is the Son and He who is the Holy Spirit. They are three Persons or three hypostasies. But hypostases is a better term because there are three instances of divine life in perfect and total unity.” (Hopko)

Furthermore, while the emphasis on one-ness in the AC implies one single mind, the emphasis on three-ness in the EO implies three distinct minds and wills.

Are distinct Beings.

The term “triune God” means one God consisting of three Entities. But Eastern Orthodoxy believes that the ‘one God’ is the Father, who does not consist of three Entities.

EO does not refer to the Trinity as “God” but as “the tri-hypostatic Divinity” or as “the tri-personal Godhead.” A hypostasis is a distinct existence. “Tri-hypostatic Divinity” means three distinct divine existences (three divine Beings), united in agreement but not in substance. For example:

“In Eastern Orthodoxy, the term triune God is not a traditional formula. You find the term tri-personal or tri-hypostatic Divinity. There is no tri-personal God.” (Hopko)

“The Trinity is the tri-hypostatic Divinity – the tri-personal Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; one in essence and undivided.” (Hopko)

Are ontologically equal.

While the AC emphasizes one-ness of substance, EO emphasizes sameness of substance:

“The Son and the Spirit are of the same essence as the Father.” (Hopko)

“God the Father … His Word (or Only Begotten Son) and Spirit … are uncreated and co-eternal, co-equal in the fact that they belong to the category of creator, not creature.” (EO Catechism, question 90)

“He (the Son) is divine with the same divinity as the one true and living God. … of one very same essence (ousia) – one same being or divinity with God the Father Himself’” (Hopko).

The Son and the Spirit are “co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father” because of their “ontological or essential equality” which was “expressed … by the expression ‘homoousion’” (EO Catechism, question 95).

“This only begotten Son is divine with the very same divinity as the one true and living God.” (Hopko)

Are inseparable.

“God the Father is thus always with and inseparable from his Only-Begotten Son and Holy Spirit” (EO Catechism, question 90).

“This … is the mystery of the Trinity, that God the Father is always with His Word (or Only Begotten Son) and Spirit.” (EO Catechism, question 90)

“With Him (God) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom … He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness…’ (Genesis 1:26)” (EO Catechism, question 90, quoting St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:20).

God the Father is thus always with and inseparable from his Only-Begotten Son and Holy Spirit (EO Catechism, question 90).

Ontological Subordination

Firstly, it presents them as eternally functionally subordinate, which implies ontological subordination.

Secondly, in EO, the Father is the cause and origin and the Son and Spirit have the same divinity as the Father, which means that they received their being and existence from the Father’s. Conceptually, they are portions of the Father’s uncreated substance.

Thirdly, EO never says that the Father is homoousios with the Son. It always says the Son is homoousios with the Father, which implies some kind of subordination:

“The church fathers of the fourth century, like Gregory the theologian, would never have said that the Father is of one essence with the Son. They would only say that the Son is of one essence with the Father. The reason is that the Son’s divinity is the Father’s divinity. The Son is “God from God” (Nicene Creed). He is a divine Person “from” the one God.”

Functional Subordination

The Son and the Spirit are “co-eternal and co-uncreated with the Father” because of their “ontological or essential equality” … However, “this does not negate different roles or functions.” (cf. 1 Cor 11:2-3; 15:27-28) (EO Catechism, question 95)

“The one God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is the Father who sends His only begotten Son into the world.” (Hopko)

This is not regarded as heresy, for the definitions in theological dictionaries of unacceptable forms of Subordinationism are careful to define it, not as all subordinate, but specifically as ontological subordination, namely, in terms of:

• • • • • “The divine essence” ³Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., “Subordinationism,” in Dictionary of Theology (2d ed.; New York: Crossroad, 1981) 488 or
        • “Essential divinity” ⁴Frances Young, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 553

Jesus is God qualitatively.

The Bible sometimes refers to the Son as ‘God’. EO interprets this as meaning that the Son has an “uncreated divine nature.”

“In the Holy Scriptures, God (theos) is generally used in the personal sense of the Father. There are also passages where Jesus Christ is called ‘my/our God’ and theos in the sense of … uncreated divine nature.” (EO Catechism, question 93)

In other words, Eastern Orthodoxy believes the Scriptures use the word theos (God) in two senses:

• • • • When referring to the Father, it uses theos in a “personal” (definite) sense to identify the Father as the ‘one God’.
      • When referring to Jesus, it uses theos qualitatively to describe Him as uncreated and divine.

EO also refers to Jesus as theos (God) in a qualitative sense to say that He is uncreated and divine:

“When it is said that ‘Jesus Christ is God’ or that there is ‘one God in three Persons’, we (Eastern Orthodoxy) use the word God in the qualitative sense of ‘uncreated’ or ‘divine’.” (EO Catechism, question 93)

For example, EO translates John 1:1c as “and the Word was divine:”

“In John’s gospel, in the beginning, the Logos was with God, and ‘the Logos was divine’. All things came to be through Him (John 1:1-2). Orthodox Christians interpret these sentences to show that the Logos is really divine with the same divinity as the Father.” (Hopko)

The qualitative use of theos when referring to the Son confirms that EO thinks of the Father and Son as distinct substances (hypostases).

The Father alone is the ‘one God’.

The Greeks used the word ‘theos’ for their gods. Generally, the Jews in Jesus’ day spoke Greek and the authors of the New Testament used the same word in the Greek text of the New Testament for the God of the Bible. But it had a wide range of meanings. For example, the New Testament also uses theos for God’s people, the gods of the nations, and even for Satan. In such instances, theos is translated as “god.” (Read more)

Given the wide range of meanings that the word theos has, the authors of the New Testament sometimes added words such as “true” or “only” to theos to identify the God of the Bible. Perhaps the most important such phrase is “one God” for it connects with the Old Testament Shema, “Yahweh is one” (Deut 6:4).

“It is critically important to note that, in the Bible and, therefore, in the creeds, such as the Nicene Creed (325) and Creed of Constantinople (381), the ONE GOD in whom we believe is not the Holy Trinity. The ONE GOD is God the Father. In the Bible, the ONE GOD is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is the Father who sends His only begotten Son into the world.” (Hopko)

“The ONE GOD is the Father of Jesus: Jesus is the Son of God. As the Nicene Creed says, Jesus is ‘God from God; true God from true God.’” (Hopko)

In these quotes, Hopko claims that EO follows the Nicene Creed, which says:

“We believe in ONE GOD, the Father almighty.” (Nicene Creed)

Hopko also claims that, in the Bible, the ‘one God’ is always the Father. For example:

• • • • • “God is one” (Mark 12:28-30; James 2:19; Gal 3:20);
        • “The one and only God” (John 5:44);
        • “One God” (1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Eph 4:4-6);
        • “Only God” (Jude 1:25; John 5:44; 1 Tim 1:17); or
        • “Only true God” (John 17:3).

The Athanasian Creed is Modalism.

“The other terrible error is usually called Modalism. This is where people say that there is one God who is the Holy Trinity” (Hopko).

Modalism is another name for Monarchianism, of which Sabellianism is a refined form. In these views, there is only one hypostasis (only one distinct existence). However, there are different explanations of how the Father, Son, and Spirit relate to that one distinct existence.

CONCLUSIONS

OTHER ARTICLES

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment

FOOTNOTES

• 1
  R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
• 2
  Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. Lewis is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.
• 3
  Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., “Subordinationism,” in Dictionary of Theology (2d ed.; New York: Crossroad, 1981) 488
• 4
  Frances Young, The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 553