Why don't protestants reject the filioque?

John 7:37-39
(37)  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
(38)  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(39)  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Revelation 22:1 [Same Author]
(1)  And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Should have underlined "let him come unto me, and drink."

They probably uncritically inherited it, Luther doesn't strike me as a church historian could be wrong though.

It may be relevant that Lutheran liturgy has everyone recite the older Apostles' Creed. This nicely sidesteps the entire issue for practical day-to-day worship. Even though the church accepts the version of the Nicene Creed with filioque (probably because one option had to be picked), it isn't being used much.

I get the feeling that Luther didn't really know what to think about filioque. The general thinking is that the filioque was an arcane theological detail that shouldn't have caused a schism and people should just have agreed to disagree. Yes, the procession of the Holy Spirit may be a fundamental aspect of reality, but the question is how much about that is really knowable to us as the things currently stands and how much we really need to know here in this world.

You might not think it, but Lutheranism in its non-inclusion of Scholasticism is more mystical than Catholicism and more willing to let things be without strictly defined technical explanations. The difference between the Lutheran and Catholic versions of the Real Presence in the eucharist (which both believe in) is a good example. The Catholics think that rejecting their version with its Scholastic talk about "substances" and "accidents" is heresy…

Luther said the Orthodox are more close to original Christianity than Catholics

That doesn't mean he completely approved of all their teachings, or understood all of them.

I've noticed some Anglicans also tend to use the Orthodox as an argument against Catholicism, but neither of them actually understand Orthodoxy or care to dig deeper they just want an excuse to not be Catholic

The word "proceed" in this verse is the same word for proceed used in Mark 7:20, and Matthew 15:11; "That which proceeds out of a man". This of course doesn't mean eternally coming out of a man, so it is wrong to look at the proceeding of the river of life as eternal as well just by the word.
Doesn't this verse simply show that since the Spirit is shown coming out of the Throne then he is fully God?
If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then how comes the Spirit was given?

Because the major objection of Orthodoxes on the filioque is about the authority (or the abuse of it), while protestants are more focused on the creedal content. After all, reformers don't really recognize your authority (along with Roma's) as authoritative or apostolic.

And he's correct, but Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't go back far enough.

And what do you mean by asking why the Spirit was sent to the church?

Attached: efe2806a28c69263c4d71ae9184b927c85dd47afa3d3333f38bc2e13c8df8147.png.jpg (1600x1184, 219.92K)

If they accept all 7 ecumenical councils then they're not reformed. Also, only idiots are bible only. Sola fide simply means that the bible is the ultimate authority, not that you can't have traditions, creeds councils and the whole lot.

I didn't. I said "doesn't this verse simply show that since the Spirit is shown coming out of the Throne then he is fully God?".
I said that since the word used for proceed has instances elsewhere the bible that in no way mean eternal procession, you have to prove to me that this proceeding is eternal and not something that will just happen at the end of time.
Your verse says that "The Holy Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified", doesn't this mean that the Holy Spirit couldn't be given to the disciples because Jesus had yet to be glorified by God via the Resurrection? If he proceeds from the Father and the Son then shouldn't Jesus be able to grant the Spirit at any time? And not just after the Resurrection? I just want to know your explanation for this.

It's a definite possibility, but I still think it speaks to the relationship of the persons of the Godhead.

It would be because of His voluntary submission to the Father's will in His incarnation. However Christ speaks of the time after His glorification saying that not only does the Father send the Spirit (John 14:26), but He Himself would send the Spirit (John 16:7).

But if he “gives up” having the Spirit proceed from him at the incarnation then the Spirit would no longer exist. For if he proceeds from both and one stops then the Spirit would cease to be spirated.

What about Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,”
The word used for “send” here is apestalken, apestalken is used in other verses such as John 5:36 “That the father hath sent me”, John 20:21 “as my Father hath sent me”, 1 John 4:9 “God sent his only begotten Son into the world,”, and 1 John 4:14 “the Father sent the son”. Does this mean the Spirit also sends the Son and therefore the Son proceeds from the Spirit.
I think John 14:26 and John 16:7 means that the Father sends the Spirit to guide the Son, just like at Jesus baptism and his entry into the desert to be tempted; “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him… Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” (Matthew 3:16 - 4:1). The Spirit guided Christ, and when Christ “left” the disciples he sent us the Spirit that The Father sent to him to guide them and consequently us.

He doesn't. Christ did not cease to be God when He was incarnated, and so the Spirit still proceeded from His divinity.

Yes the Spirit sends the Son into the world. No this does not mean that the Son relates to the Spirit as one proceeding out of the other.

That can't be what John 16:7 means.

Why not?
Again why not? You’re just making assertions without providing any reasoning. I quoted lots of scripture and you’re just being dismissive of it all
I’m willing to accept this because it has reasoning. You assert “it doesn’t” and provide reasoning. Unlike the rest of your reply.

...

Because 16:7 is talking about the Son, and not the Father.

Because the eternal procession of the Spirit is different from the temporal act of the Son being sent into the world.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
John 16:7
So the Spirit is sent by both the Spirit and the Son, I don't deny that, I deny that it implies procession.
As I reasoned earlier The Spirit sends the Son as well Luke 4:18 which is the exact same word as 1 John 4:14, 1 John 4:9, and John 5:36.
The word send is used to denote the mission of the person, The Spirit sent the Son at Luke 4:18 to begin his mission, and the Son sent the Spirit at Pentecost to begin their mission. These are temporal sendings.
We say that Jesus is the Begotten Son of the Father because it is directly stated in 1 John 4:9 "his only begotten Son", the relationship between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten.
We say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father because of John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me:". Here the relationship is clear, the Spirit proceeds from the father and will be sent by the Son, why did John not write "when the comforter is come, who proceeds from me and my father"?
Reasoning?

In the Evangelical and Conservative Reformed circles two years ago, this was a huge issue. On one side, you had the confessionalists/philosophical-minded who claimed that eternal functional subordination of both the Son and the Spirit or any ad intra economic roles is heresy, while the other side claimed that such comports with Scripture and does not contradict the nature or essential unity of the Trinity.

So yes, some Protestants reject the filioque and will even condemn you as anathema if you dare to breath out the words "eternal functional subordination", the filioque, or similar language.

That's fine. I was originally only using those passages in response to your question in this post about whether Christ had authority to send the Spirit.

Because as you said earlier in your post "These are temporal sendings," but the procession of the Spirit (whether from one or both the Father, and Son) is eternal. Just as Christ's being eternally begotten is different from His incarnation so too is the procession of the Spirit different from His being given to the Church.

Protestants still come from Western Christian theological tradition, which has affirmed the filioque since the 5th century. It's not exactly a surprise that they embrace it. I think Old Catholics have rejected it though, and the Anglicans think about rejecting it.

And then there's James 'θεοπνευστος' White who will rail against EFS supporters, and then expound on the filioque as perfectly orthodox.

Attached: James-White-Bow-Tie-Sword-Kilt.png (240x600, 204.28K)

So that's your reasoning, but where is the evidence? I think I've demonstrated that the word "send" simply denotes sending, and not a procession from someone.
You say the procession of the Spirit is eternal, I would like to see your evidence to back up your reasoning.

You'd be surprised, but Jame Al-White (PBuH) is relatively tame compared to the vitriol expressed by guys like Carl Trueman and Liam Goligher. What's worse is that those two in particular, and Danny Burk who switched to the "confessional" side in the debate a few months in, have preached moral errors, heresies of lesser degree, such as feminism.
Like that one guy said in the screencap thread, the capture concerning the mystical nature of the Trinity, the Trinity is not something that fits neatly in Aristotelian categories or Platonic forms. Acting out roles that submits willingly and joyfully oneself to another does not change the essence, glory, power, will, etc. To declare something regarding the Trinity as impossible beyond the obvious basics (God can't stop being God by making a rock too heavy, the Son is begotten and not created, plurality of personal consciousnesses not mere plurality of expressions of a single consciousness, etc) is to adapt a presumptuous role of defining who God is rather than simply hearing how God defines Himself.

And I never objected to that.

His procession must have been at least since the creation as we read in Genesis 1:2 "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," and it seems as if in Psalms 104:30 indicates that His procession was from before the creation "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth."
By the way what do you think of the Holy Ghost being called the "Spirit of Christ" in the time before Christ's incarnation in 1 Peter 1:10-11?

Yeah, but I've seen some people on here who would fight you to the death over the inspiration of Aristotle lol.

Even if there was a sending at the beginning of creation, it doesn't imply there was an eternal sending before the creation. Also I'm not sure why the Spirit would have to be sent at all. It could easily have been that the Spirit came of his own free will into the universe, or that the Father sent him.
not procession, but sending. He sent him to the creation to create through him.
>By the way what do you think of the Holy Ghost being called the "Spirit of Christ"
The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ because The Spirit is God and the Son is God. It is a term used to denote the intimate relationship of love between between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit anoints Christ as shown in Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the lord is upon me". The Spirit Incarnates Christ in Mary in Luke 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee". The Spirit also guided and sent Christ in Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me" and in Matthew 4:1 "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.".
The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ because the Spirit abides with or in the Son. This shows the relationship between the Son and the Ghost. The Son is fully God and since the Spirit is of the same Spirit as the Son then he also must be fully God, lest anyone say the Father is God, The Son is God, but the Spirit is not God.
"Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."
See above. The Spirit is of Christ because the Spirit is fully God just like Christ.
An analogy I can think of is you and your wife's finances. Say if you work and she doesn't, and after a week have, say, $700 spending money, then that money is your money and her money, even though the money only comes from you, and not from her.
Similarly the Ghost only comes from the Father, and obeying the Father's will and out of love, rests in or on the Son. Hence we can say the Spirit is of the son, yet coming from the Father.

...

Man that's all I got other than an appeal to the immutability of God, but that probably wouldn't persuade you.
All I can say is that those passages satisfy me for the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, and the Son.

Do you think however that the Filioque should divide Catholicism from Orthodoxy? I'm presuming you're Catholic, so I want to know if theoretically the Pope and an Orthodox council of patriarchs agree the filioque or the lack of it are valid theological opinions. Or do you believe that it is vital for the Eastern Churches to accept the filioque?

Confessional lutherans hold their confessional documents to be the perfect norm for interpreting scripture, and the form of the creed used in the concordia is the western creed.

Sola scriptura* by bad

I'm actually a protty, but no I don't think its a big enough deal to keep the east, and west apart.
As long as we all affirm that the Godhead is three eternal Persons sharing equally in the one Divine Essence then we can leave the details of their eternal relationship to mystery, or conscience.
The Schism was at least just as much political as it was doctrinal anyway.

...