The Filioque, the Monarchy of the Father, Arianism, and the Nicene Faith

A quick off the cuff explainer.

The Filioque controversy is relatively interesting to me due to its relevance in undermining many arguments against the Eunomians (an Arian sect) presented in the latter half of the 4th century. I believe a basic outline of the argument against the filioque can go through the following statements:

1.       In traditional classical theism, God is identical to existence; he grounds all existent things. Grounding here is a relational  principle, for instance, a cup of coffee will not fall to the ground if it is at x latitude, y longitude, and z altitude. This is because it is grounded by the table underneath it. In another state of affairs where said table did not exist all else equal, it would fall to the ground and shatter. Grounding differentiates these two scenarios in the same way God allows all things to participate in existence so that things which do not, do not exist.

2.       To say God grounds all existence is to say that he is a necessary being and A se. Aseity is simply the property of not being dependent upon anything. In this case, it could not be the case that God can fail to exist. This would imply God is not caused by anything because he could not fail to exist, he is uncaused, or the first principle of being.

3.       The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 makes a couple of statements:

a)       The one God is the Father almighty.

b)       The Son is begotten, not made.

c)       The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father

4.       Those statements are consequent to the co-essentiality of the Son and the Spirit. As Athanasius writes in chapter three of his first discourse to the Arians:

For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:— Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, 'I said you are Gods,' had this grace from the Father, only by participation of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father's Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father's essence. For this too the Lord has said, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father John 14:9.' And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting.

It is clear from this passage that Athanasius believes the Son as a hypostases is the word and wisdom of God, and that God’s Wisdom was everlasting. It is interesting to think through why. If we denied that God’s wisdom was everlasting, then God would fluctuate in wisdom which would be against his nature (immutability). Therefore, it can only be the case that God’s wisdom existed with him for all of eternity.

A similar argument could be made in the case of the holy spirit. The trinitarian reading of John 4:24 which states:

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

If God is spirit, then by consequence of immutability, God cannot substantially change so that his spirit is always with him. Then, the spiration of the Holy Spirit must be eternal.

5.       The One God is the Father if we are speaking of the hypostases which is the ‘arche’ or first principle of being. As Basil says in chapter eighteen on Of the Holy Spirit:

How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king's image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.

Because the Son is called the perfect image of God, the son is dependent on the Father. This is the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father.

6.       Gregory of Nyssa in his twelve-book volume Against Eunomius makes an argument that the Eunomians are not warranted in believing that aseity is not an essential divine attribute. This is because being a kind of thing is not affected by being uncaused or prior to being affected by anything. He states:

And yet supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that this was so, what superiority does the being which is prior in time have over that which follows, on the score of pure being, that he can say that the one is supreme and proper, and the other is not? For while the lifetime of the elder as compared with the younger is longer, yet his being has neither increase nor decrease on that account. This will be clear by an illustration. What disadvantage, on the score of being, as compared with Abraham, had David who lived fourteen generations after? Was any change, so far as humanity goes, effected in the latter? Was he less a human being, because he was later in time? Who would be so foolish as to assert this?

It is clear here that the Father alone can possess the property of being uncaused, and that the act of dependence upon him does not make the Son or the Spirit any less a member of the Godhead. This was contra Eunomius who believed:

'We say that it was not by separation or division, because (God is) indissoluble, nor by the ousia of God admitting generation (genesis), because (God is) ingenerate. nor by any other substance contributing to the production of the Son, but the Son was brought into existence, having not existed'.

These premises alone should be sufficient to show where the problems with the Filioque. Since the Filioque says that the holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Photius 1 of Constantinople argued in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that:

Leaving aside the aforementioned, if one admits of two causes within the the archic and superessential triad, where then is the much hymned and God befitting majesty of the monarchy? Will not the godlessness of polytheism be riotously introduced? Under the guise of Christianity, will not the superstition of Greek error reassert its itself among those who dare to say such things?

Again, if two causes are imposed upon the monarchic triad, then according to the same reasoning, why should not a third one emerges? For once the principle without principle and above principle [= the father], is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is cleaved into a duality, the division of the principle [arche] will proceed more vehemently into a triad, since in the supersubstantial, inseparable, and simple nature of the divinity, the triad is more manifest than the dyad, and indeed also harmonizes with the idiomata.

It may seem extreme to state that the filioque would lead either to polytheism or impose that the first principle be given to all members of the trinity. At first, it makes sense to believe that the filioque could be ontologically possible since it is relationally possible (there is no clear logical problem in saying that the father eternally causes the son, while the father and the son eternally cause the spirit to proceed from them). However, if one looks at the arguments above, it becomes clear that the filioque entails some parts of the patristic argument for the Nicene doctrine be false:

1.       The fifth and sixth argument from above is incorrect, and the Eunomians are correct. In this case it would be okay to state that the entire trinity is a se. This is what Photius means by the arche being divided into the triad. Many modern evangelical theologians endorse this view, which ironically opens Arianism up to be a possibility while also identifying the triune God as the first cause or arche.

2.       Maybe, the former point is incorrect because filioquists believe the son is not a se. This situation contradicts the second argument above which is the reason for the eternal processions. If the Father required a second hypostases to eternally cause the Holy Spirit, then the Father is no longer a se. If the father is dependent on the son (in the sense of not being omnipotent) to cause the holy spirit in eternity, then there are two arche or two Gods (in the monarchical sense).   

3.       To make the Son and the Spirit un-essential, and therefore created, would make the filioque consistent. One could say the father created the son, and the father through the son created the holy spirit. However, this argument is not going to interest most Christians wishing to defend the Filioque.

4.       To say the filioque undermines other parts of the creed. These are the options. The one God is the Father and the filioque is false, making the rest of the creed true. The one God is the trinity since all three persons have aseity, making the creed false. The filioque is true, and Arianism is true, making the creed false.