The objection
East and West dispute the Spirit's procession. The Athanasian Creed is not even certainly by Athanasius. How, then, can one speak of the one binding doctrine of the Trinity?
1. The subject of dispute must be named precisely
“Filioque” means “and from the Son.” The Western addition concerns the statement about from whom the Spirit proceeds. Both sides confess the Spirit as a divine person and reject classifying him among creatures. The disputed question is therefore not identical with whether the Holy Spirit exists as a divine person.
The creed of 381 names his procession from the Father and his shared worship with Father and Son.[3] This distinction alone prevents treating every later difference as dissolution of the entire doctrinal core.
2. Mission and eternal procession are not automatically the same
John 15,26 names the Spirit proceeding from the Father whom Jesus will send. Galatians 4,6 speaks of the Son's Spirit. Western theology connects such texts to the Spirit's eternal relationship to Father and Son; Eastern theology emphasizes the Father as source and distinguishes this from sending through the Son.
The individual concepts and their relationship must be explained. “The Son sends” does not automatically entail every later metaphysical description. Frame expressly discusses this exegetical and conceptual difficulty.[1]
3. A transmitted name is no proof of authorship
The so-called Athanasian Creed must not be treated as a text personally composed by Athanasius. Grudem expressly points this out.[2] Its name designates association with a doctrinal tradition; it replaces no historical evidence.
In any case, a proposition's truth does not depend on whether a famous church father himself formulated it. This creed's statements concerning salvation, too, must be tested against scripture. They must not be made into an additional condition of theological technical knowledge for receiving eternal life.
4. The difference limits certain claims
One cannot claim that every detail of the Western formulation has always been confessed identically everywhere. It does not follow, however, that Father, Son and Spirit are therefore arbitrary interpretations. The dispute takes place within an already defined confession of their deity and real distinction.
A precise answer therefore defends the biblical doctrinal core and discloses its reasons for more extensive models of origin. Historical accuracy protects this distinction. It neither replaces exegesis nor makes Christian certainty dependent on an invented complete unanimity.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- John M. Frame, The Doctrine of GodCh. 29, pp. 716–718: Filioque, historical change and exegetical arguments.
- Wayne Grudem, Biblische DogmatikCh. 14, pp. 272–273: The Athanasian Creed was not composed by Athanasius himself.
- Creed of Constantinople 381The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is worshiped with Father and Son.