Filioque, Father or Son?

[Artfuldodger]

Sounds like one of those debates like Creation, Father or Son?

Filioque? The debate on who sent the Holy Spirit. Well that also sounds like one of those debates on who sent the Son?

From a Trinity viewpoint it can appear to make the Son and/or Holy Spirit subservient to the Father. If the Father sent the Son. If either the Father or Son sent the Holy Spirit.

Anyhow we have verses where the Father sent the Holy Spirit and verses where the Son sent the Holy Spirit.

Does it really change the Trinity meaning if the Holy Spirit came from the Father or the Son or both? Wasn't the Holy Spirit sent to replace Jesus on the earth? Replacement sounds weird.

Even this debate is a bit weird. I never even knew it was a controversy but some say it's really important.

Jesus on the other hand has two natures, one man and the other God. Jesus said the Father knows more than the Son. What about the Holy Spirit?

Lots of scripture appears to leave the Holy Spirit out of the dialog of the Father and Son. Maybe filioque is addressing this lack of dialog.

 

[Madman]

Sounds like one of those debates like Creation, Father or Son?

Filioque? The debate on who sent the Holy Spirit. Well that also sounds like one of those debates on who sent the Son?

From a Trinity viewpoint it can appear to make the Son and/or Holy Spirit subservient to the Father. If the Father sent the Son. If either the Father or Son sent the Holy Spirit.

Anyhow we have verses where the Father sent the Holy Spirit and verses where the Son sent the Holy Spirit.

Does it really change the Trinity meaning if the Holy Spirit came from the Father or the Son or both? Wasn't the Holy Spirit sent to replace Jesus on the earth? Replacement sounds weird.

Even this debate is a bit weird. I never even knew it was a controversy but some say it's really important.

Jesus on the other hand has two natures, one man and the other God. Jesus said the Father knows more than the Son. What about the Holy Spirit?

Lots of scripture appears to leave the Holy Spirit out of the dialog of the Father and Son. Maybe filioque is addressing this lack of dialog.

Yep there was a lot of discussion on this matter. I would have to refresh myself but this may have been part of the reason the Coptic Church left the councils early, I do know they left because they believed the Western church was "throwing rocks" at their man St. Cyril.

In the last 10-20 years the Eastern Church and the Western Church seem to have agreed that it was a language/dialect problem in trying to understand each other. When this was being worked out words and definitions had to be applied, pretty difficult.

The Western Church believed that there was strong Biblical evidence for the Filioque.

John 15:26, From Father through Son
Acts 2:33, From the Father
Gal. 4:6, Father Sent the Spirit of His Son
Matt. 10:20 Spirit of the Father
John 14:16 Father sent because of the actions of the Son

 

[Artfuldodger]

I still get a bit confused with the Eastern vs Western Church identity thing.

Galatians 4:6
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."

I wonder if that's why some people see the the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost of Jesus?

We also know that God's spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

John 7:39
He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

John 7:39
He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

That sounds like the Father gave Jesus the Holy Spirit. Then before the Holy Spirit could be given to us Jesus had to be glorified.

I don't guess I understand all I should about the glory of Jesus and glorification. How was Jesus glorified for the Spirit to come?

 

[Madman]

That sounds like the Father gave Jesus the Holy Spirit. Then before the Holy Spirit could be given to us Jesus had to be glorified.

I don't guess I understand all I should about the glory of Jesus and glorification. How was Jesus glorified for the Spirit to come?

There is no giving. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are co-equal, co-eternal.
3 in person, 1 in essence.

 

[Artfuldodger]

There is no giving. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are co-equal, co-eternal.
3 in person, 1 in essence.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I do see the aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I understand the 3 in 1 personas.
Yet when I picture God, I see the One Father sending His Son, giving us his Son. I see God sending his Spirit perhaps through His Son. I see God creating perhaps through His Son.

I see a lot of Churches, not yours, making Christianity more about the Son than the Father. The Holy Spirit gets left out as well. I will say that your Church does a good job including all three.

That being said I must agree with the Son. He preached about his Father and my Father, his God and my God.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of his Father. It was all about his Father's glory. The thing I'm missing about the Trinity is just that.

Jesus didn't preach about his own glory or the glory of the Holy Spirit. He preached the Kingdom of his Father.

How many times is it repeated in scripture that there is One God and one Lord Jesus Christ? Consider that the Old Testament is about the Son and the New Testament is about the Father. Some people get it backwards. Listen to what Jesus preached.

My Father is greater than I. It's all about my Father's glory. "I have come in my Father's name." "I do the will of my Father."
"The Son of God will come in the glory of his Father."

So my question is "why didn't Jesus seek his own glory?" If in fact Jesus is equal to his Father, why does it appear he is subservient?
This not just while he was a man on the earth but before and after.
He is a Son. God gave us this Son. He came to do the will of his Father. He taught the Kingdom of his Father. He is now at the right hand of his Father. He will return in his Father's glory. He will hand the Kingdom back over to his Father. His Father gave him the authority over the Kingdom.

I do see the Trinity, the 3 in 1, I just don't see the equality. Especially the Holy Spirit. Paul never included Him in his salutation. The Holy Spirit doesn't seem to be a part of the Creation process. He wasn't as much a part of the Father/Son relationship.

I do see a lot of the Father "giving." He gave us his Son. He gave his Son authority. He gave his Son his Spirit. He resurrected his Son. He will send his Son back to the earth. The Son will hand over the Kingdom.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,

John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Maybe this was just while he was on the earth. I can see that. Jesus emptied himself. He didn't use his divinity.
I've studied that precept. I understand it. I get it.

Again what I don't get is. God gave us his Son. God created through his Son. God sent his Spirit. It's still all about the Father. Thy Father's will. My Father's glory.

Jesus never changes his teachings. It's all about his Father. His Father's Kingdom. No wonder some see him as the Father. I see him as an image of his Father but if he was actually his Father, then he would still be the Father now. I can sorta see the Oneness more that the Trinity. The three being equal doesn't have to be explained.

But even that doesn't explain why Jesus was so adamant the it was all about his Father's glory and Kingdom.

I still haven't found an answer to this mystery. The Trinity belief as most see it hasn't been revealed to me. It was my indoctrination. Just because councils of men decided it was correct doesn't make it so.
Oneness does explain it a little better but still leaves verses to hurdle.

I wish I could sleep slumber underneath the roof of conviction. But I sleep cold forever, in the draft of an open mind.

What happens if I die before my revelation? I do believe Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, who died for my sins.

 

[Artfuldodger]

God gave us his Son. That was one part of the Son's reason for coming to the earth. He also came to reveal the Father. If you saw Jesus, you saw the Father. He was his Father's Messenger.
That Messenger part of his journey to the earth is often missed by some people. He came to reveal his Father's glory, his Father's Kingdom.

Jesus did not speak his own words nor did he seek his own glory. It just seems to be a part of the "Good News" that we often forget.

We can look at this Kingdom of God any way we want to but it's still all about the Father's kingdom.

 

[Madman]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I do see the aspects of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I understand the 3 in 1 personas.
Yet when I picture God, I see the One Father sending His Son, giving us his Son. I see God sending his Spirit perhaps through His Son. I see God creating perhaps through His Son.

I see a lot of Churches, not yours, making Christianity more about the Son than the Father. The Holy Spirit gets left out as well. I will say that your Church does a good job including all three.

That being said I must agree with the Son. He preached about his Father and my Father, his God and my God.

Co-equal, co-eternal
1 in essence, 3 in persons.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Co-equal, co-eternal
1 in essence, 3 in persons.

The subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their actings? Why is it never the Father who is subordinate? My answer would be the Father is the "head of the Trinity."
It's His Kingdom.

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

John 6:37
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

The Father chose the Redeemer(John 3:16), gave his Son authority, and also chooses who he sends to the Redeemer for salvation.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty. The majestic God in Heaven.

The Son radiates God's glory. He expresses the very character of God, the exact representation of his being. An exact imprint of God's nature.

I truly can see the Trinity in this. I'm not exactly sure where the Holy Spirit is but I'm sure he's around somewhere. I don't doubt the existence of the Trinity.

It's just that I see the Father as the head of this Trinity from and for all eternity. The Father holds the #1 position in the Trinity for a reason. Otherwise they wouldn't have numbered places.

1 Corinthians 15:28
Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God's authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

 

[Madman]

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty. The majestic God in Heaven.

The Son radiates God's glory. He expresses the very character of God, the exact representation of his being. An exact imprint of God's nature.

I truly can see the Trinity in this. I'm not exactly sure where the Holy Spirit is but I'm sure he's around somewhere. I don't doubt the existence of the Trinity.

It's just that I see the Father as the head of this Trinity from and for all eternity. The Father holds the #1 position in the Trinity for a reason.

The church has always taught:
Equal in being.
Subordinate in rank.

Go back and read the church father's. No need to rehase this. The church settled it 1700 years ago.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The church has always taught:
Equal in being.
Subordinate in rank.

Go back and read the church father's. No need to rehase this. The church settled it 1700 years ago.

I'll consider it. My wife isn't less human because she submits to me. In that respect the Son isn't less God because he submits to the Father.

I wonder where that leaves the Church. The Church isn't less ____ because it submits to Christ.

You see the submission between the the Father and Son, Jesus and Church, husband and wife within the confines of equality?

That does appear to be a good research subject. Settled 1700 years ago. I'll check it out.

The Father was only greater in rank or role. That is what Jesus was teaching. The incarnation created the subornation but only in a rank or role aspect.

This rank or role of the Son now continues past the ascension because of Christ's humanity.

1 Corinthians 15:28
Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God's authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The church has always taught:
Equal in being.
Subordinate in rank.

Go back and read the church father's. No need to rehase this. The church settled it 1700 years ago.

I mentioned in my last post that the subordination, in rank or role, started at the incarnation.
Is this the way you see it or the Church sees it?

Anyway maybe the subordination has eternally existed otherwise the Trinity may not be so. If the Son is not eternally submissive to the Father, then the Father is not an eternal Father and the Son is not eternally a Son. Maybe?
But only in rank or role. The rank of Son being eternal and the rank of Father being eternal. Eternal from the beginning to the end, subordinate from the beginning to the end as in 1 Corinthians 15?
Verse 28 clearly states that the Son will be subject to God the Father.
Is that what was settled in Nicea? Maybe that is something I missed about the Council of Nicea.

I know I sound a bit confused but this rank and role was not a part of my indoctrination. It might have been and I just never learned it when I should have. I will look at it as a way of justifying the Trinity aspect within equality. It does sound feasible.

The eternal subornation thing is my Trinity hurdle. Well that and the Holy Spirit getting left out so much like in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23.

 

[Israel]

Our thinking is informed of the Spirit. What we "use as examples" in the natural to some utility must soon give way to truth. We must come to see we do not translate God "to our understanding", we are translated through Christ, to His. (God's)

I sound pompous. A fool. Can you bear with one?

I do not say "must" as form of obligation. It's usage is in a hope found no less in brother Paul.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

This is not spoken as something a man's to "do"...nor spoken as law laid upon man to execute. This ordained thing cannot be resisted. It is, if one can bear it by (my) poor explanation the present happening of God. What God is doing. God's will and doing are never at odds...His consistency is pure and without mixture or division. He speaks His will, irrevocable. He is single of heart and deed. And, we are learning.

This discussion enters into the Holy of Holies, here, we must take off our shoes. We are looking into relationship of Father and Son in God. All prior understanding of relationship (and relationships) here, must give way...and that emphatically. Jesus was not being extreme (unless one find Him less than all truth)

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Simply...we are slaves in all our own relationships. All of these exercise demand upon us, position and the maintenance thereof. We are willing or unwilling (some may see it matters not) participants in them. Whether we commend ourselves as good in them, or stand self condemned as poor in them...is all the same. No man's entrance is assured by being anything of them. Indeed, any assurance one may find in them, is summarily dismissed.

"God is able of these stones to raise up children of Abraham"

So, pulling from our understanding of "father and son" or "fathers and sons" to fit God into our understanding is more than futile...it is counter. Jesus has come to reveal the true relationship of Father and Son to all who enter into it. It is not learned by observation...but entrance and participation. It is not "figured out". This is not rebuke, but reminder. Our straining to see, striving to understand cannot of itself ever produce before us anything eternal in sight. We dare not settle for pay according to our own labors, unless we must be shown foolish. Here, the basis of exchange is not upon anything except what has already been exchanged, and that, for us.

When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed...

What remains in mind of inferiority of position, rankings according to some form of hierarchy of significance, primacy, or importance to a subjugation by one against another, must be abandoned. Order is. And the Divine order of Father and Son does not submit itself to our understanding, we are learning of submission in His (God's). To a renewal of mind. To be given to "look into" relation of Father and Son is all our glorious liberty found. For it is there made true

"Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed", for it is there all obligation of law is annulled and such love abounding is all and only compulsion. (and who of us does not understand, even in most common terms of man...even this taste of what must be eclipsed by the truth in Christ of "walking on air"?) Nothing frees a man of gravity's most severe imposition to earth's cling (most severe being the grave) than the love of God found in Jesus Christ. We have not been tricked...we were made captive...to be captivated. A terribly awful thing accomplished, to bring us to all awe. Where even the terribly awful is now seen in different light. (knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men)

It is no wonder in seeking to "look into such glory"...we are opposed on almost every side. Nothing excludes our understandings here, abetted by the Liar to their maintenance...than our own understandings. The world has taught us all the dangers of seeking to fly too high. And, were it not for this word we must rightly cower.

"Fear not little flock, it is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom"

Moses knew of the glory...fading. He has no sorrow in having been ordained to such. To whatever purpose he was fashioned for example, his joy is now boundless. To whatever purpose we ourselves are fashioned toward one another, and for one another, we are, no less. We are signs, we are letters written, epistles given...even if all our words be "why, why, why...and why?"
Why God...do you...do?

He would not have us ever settle for less...than for His answer.
And, I am your brother in asking.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I would think that since we are made in God's image then the Father and Son relationship we as humanity have would be very similar to that of the heavenly Father and Son relationship. Examples of marriage are also used. The union of a man and woman becoming one. The head of the woman is the husband. Used with the head of the Church is Christ.
Used with the head of Christ is God. Do we not compare the three?
Equal yet with rank or role.

If these scriptural examples can't be comprehended, why were they given? If the Trinity, Oneness, and Unity can't completely be grasped, and I agree that it can't by the variety of beliefs, why are we so quick to judge individuals by their specific beliefs about the matter?

Even within the Trinity or Oneness beliefs are variations, Eternal Sonship, Eternal Submission, Incarnation Sonship, Incarnation Submission, physical ascencion by the Son, spiritual ascension by the Son, etc.

Some say that their Oneness belief was revealed by the Holy Spirit and some people say their Trinity belief was revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Others admit that it was their indoctrination, settled 1700 years ago by a council of men with divine intervention. That indoctrination is more important than scripture. It explains the Trinity more than scripture does.

There has to be a balance between the scripture and this council or between scripture and doctrine. Between your spirit and The Spirit.

If the Father calls and the Son sets them free, why isn't that enough?
Why should we even think that every individual or Church should see this matter exactly like they do?

It's like saying, no one really knows, no one can truly explain it, it's a mystery, but yet you are suppose to believe it exactly as I do or as my Church does. If you don't then you are following a different Jesus than the one God sent as his Son.
You may believe God sent his Son and that he died for your sins but that's not enough. The Father may have lead you to this Son, but that's not enough either.

 

[Artfuldodger]

So, pulling from our understanding of "father and son" or "fathers and sons" to fit God into our understanding is more than futile...it is counter. Jesus has come to reveal the true relationship of Father and Son to all who enter into it. It is not learned by observation...but entrance and participation. It is not "figured out". This is not rebuke, but reminder. Our straining to see, striving to understand cannot of itself ever produce before us anything eternal in sight. We dare not settle for pay according to our own labors, unless we must be shown foolish. Here, the basis of exchange is not upon anything except what has already been exchanged, and that, for us.


He would not have us ever settle for less...than for His answer.
And, I am your brother in asking.

Thanks for the nice and thoughtful response. I can see and learn from it. Each little piece is part of the mystery revelation. Now I see only in part.
I'm sure this will continue until I see Jesus as he is.

You said; "Jesus has come to reveal the true relationship of Father and Son to all who enter into it."

I understand Christianity includes the Father and Son. Yet Jesus said that he came to reveal the Father. That he is the image of the invisible God. It's like Jesus came to reveal his Father to humanity.

I would agree that he came for many reasons. One being to show us the Father and Son relationship. I would also agree that we can't fully understand it all.

I'm trying to see the subservient Son revealing his Father as an equal compared to Christ being the head of the Church as an equal. It's just I don't see the Church as being equal to Christ.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Then do most agree that the Son has always been a subservient Son?
Isn't that what the definition of a Father and Son relationship is? Subservient out of love for the Father?
Could there be a Trinity any other way? Wouldn't Eternal Submission have to be a part of Eternal Sonship?

If the submissiveness starts at the incarnation, what would that really change according to the Trinity belief? Actually I would say the Son must have decided or known he was coming before the incarnation.
He was the Lamb slain before the world was.
His submissiveness would have to be eternal as well.

I can't see where just his humanity made him submissive. He was always a Son. But if it did take humanity, what difference does that make as for as the Trinity belief is concerned?
Jesus has never changed. He has always been in that rank or role.
He is still a part of humanity. He is still human. He is still submissive.

His humanity may have made him submissive. The rank or role of becoming flesh. The rank or role of revealing the Father. The rank or role to teach only his Father's Kingdom. The rank and role to only teach his Father's glory.

He is still in that rank or role. He will turn the Kingdom over to his Father and put himself eternally under the Majestic Father's authority.

So if the Son has always been in the rank or role of Son and submission, yet equal with his Father and always will be in this rank or role, then this it the Trinity.

Oh, and where it the Holy Spirit within all this?

I sure wish I could have been in those councils.