An Explanation and Defense of the Filioque (Intro to Trinitarian Theology)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is a discussion of the filioque clause, including history, debates, theology, and Scripture.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

ITS HERE ITS HERE ITS HERE!!!

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Grammar alert: It’s 💙

[@andrewscotteames4718]

The Reverend Augsburg approves of your excitement

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

The Notification for heresy.

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . :)

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 . :)

[@aldersgatelives9841]

As someone who is a huge advocate for the historic creeds, and one who ardently studies the Trinity, I am VERY pleased with your work and research. It is never "easy" to explain the nuances of the Church's historical exploration of the Trinity through Scripture. I am a BIG Fan. May the Triune God continually to richly bless your ministry. I will definitely be listening to more of your postings. Soli Deo Gloria!

[@JacobLehman-ov4eu]

I have watched quite a few videos on this topic and this is by far my favorite. Thank you for recording this again just for us.

[@johnkarpiscak1134]

I appreciate all the apologetic and historical videos! Keep 'em coming!

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Great presentation. As an Anglican who still has significant Eastern sympathies, I found it interesting and encouraging that the 2019 ACNA Prayer Book puts the Filioque in brackets within the Nicene Creed. When I recite the Creed, in the interest of ecumenical goodwill and clarity, I usually say at that point “…Who proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son”. By the way, Dr Cooper, strong point about the economic Trinity being a reflection of (and not just incidental to) the ontological Trinity. 👍🏻

[@EnergeticProcession]

This is because antecedent Anglican agreements prior to the existence of the ACNA already conceded to the East that it doesn't belong in the Creed and should be removed. the problem is that "through" doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as "from" though Florence a la the Dominicans (Thomists) mandated that it must.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

@@EnergeticProcession -that “from” and “through” don’t necessarily have the same meaning is, I think, the point and an important one at that. The distinction allows for an expression of the differing way in which the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son which to me seems faithful to Scripture and to the theological concerns of East and West.

[@EnergeticProcession]

@@doubtingthomas9117 Which is why the arguments offered in the video that turn on "of" bake no bread. And the point in part shows that the Filioque as defined by Florence and confessionally accepted by Protestants is not necessary.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

@@EnergeticProcession I don’t disagree.

[@evaneparat]

@@EnergeticProcession it is strange to see the adoption of the Florentine Filioque considering what else the council codified for the Roman Church. Purgatory and papalism don't strike me as being particularly Lutheran.

[@paulc1391]

I’m currently reading Saint Ambrose’s works and in his The Holy Spirit Book Three, he addresses issues on the filioque. Specifically chapter uses strong language to support it.

[@evaneparat]

29:46 "There is nothing unique about that Spirit-Son relationship [in Orthodox theology]." This is a mischaracterization of Orthodox teaching based on a modern graphic. St. Gregory Palamas in his Treatises on the Holy Spirit actually incorporates St. Augustine of Hippo's mutual sending of loves pneumatology often claimed by the West. For St. Gregory, the Son's sending of the love back to the Father entails energetic procession (also known as eternal manifestation), which is a breathing of the Holy Spirit that is eternal but non-causal. The latter qualification there gets to the heart of the Filioque controversy. It all revolves around a relatively simple question: who generates (or causes) the Holy Spirit? Historically, both in the East and the West I would argue (see St. Maximus the Confessor's Epistle to Marinus), this was the Father alone, who is the fountain and source of the Godhead, begetting the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit (which the Cappadocians, St. John of Damascus, and Martin Chemnitz all define as being forms of generation through which the generated are caused in a manner that is consubstantial to the generator). In the Cappadocian Fathers, who serve as the core of Christology and theology proper in the Lutheran tradition, we have clear affirmations that causality is a hypostatic property which is not shared between persons, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus explicitly affirms in Oration XXXIV that everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son with the exception of causality. In other words, generation is the primary property which distinguishes Father and Son; and this only makes sense---lest we say that the Son participates in causing Himself. Although the Son does not share the property of generation, the Orthodox have and will never affirm that there is no special relationship between Son and Spirit. As mentioned above, they share energetic procession, which is an ontological and intra-Trinitarian relationship (ad 43:12) through which their relationality in an economic or temporal procession is manifested (ad 44:18). The Son and the Holy Spirit also interact through the economic procession (mentioned around 42:00), through which we get the formulas "who proceeds from the Father through the Son" or ". . . from the Father and resting upon the Son," which are referential to the descent of the Spirit at the Pentecost and the baptism of Christ. Thus "from the Father through the Son" is not the resolution to the Filioque controversy it is often made out to be, as it deals with economic procession, a temporal sending of the Spirit, while the third clause of the Creed is speaking of causality. A distinction between economic and hypostatic processions is warranted by the God-breathed scriptures themselves, particularly John 15: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Here our Lord Himself both prophesies a coming form of economic procession of the Holy Spirit in the feast of Pentecost ("whom I will send unto you from the Father"), and teaches in brief on the nature of this Holy Spirit in relation to the other persons of the Blessed Trinity ("which proceedeth from the Father"). ἐκπορεύεται, the word used by our Savior when speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, is also employed by our Holy Fathers who penned the Creed.

[@evaneparat]

To simplify the terminological gap a bit here (or at least to attempt to).... *Procession:* a sending forth of the Holy Spirit *Generation:* causation *Hypostatic property:* a specific property belonging to a person rather than to a substance. The Cappadocian Fathers and St. Gregory of Nyssa in particular affirm a distinction between hypostatic and substantial properties (ad 33:00). *Hypostatic procession:* a mode of generation/causation through which the Holy Spirit is spirated in a manner consubstantial to the Father; the Spirit in His hypostatic procession from the Father is generated/caused from eternity in a manner consubstantial to the Father. *Spiration:* syn. for hypostatic procession *Energetic procession/eternal manifestation:* a mode of sending in which the Holy Spirit is from all eternity "given, revealed, and, manifested, comes forth, and is known through the Son." (Gregory of Cyprus, Apology.) *Economic procession:* the mode of sending in which the Holy Spirit is breathed into temporality and interacts with the created order. Procession is the Spirit's equivalent to the Son's begotteness, which likewise has both hypostatic and economic forms. The Son is begotten of the Father in all eternity ("the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds . . . begotten, not made"), and in a different mode begotten in the flesh from the overshadowing of the Father through the condescension of the Holy Spirit upon the Blessed Virgin, the Son being "begotten in a new order by a new nativity." (St. Leo the Great, Tome IV.)

[@thomasglass9491]

@@evaneparat In other words, the filioque is biblical. Revelation 22:1 is very clear: "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb".

[@Ac-ip5hd]

Yup. Let alone everything that happened after it and the second schism. Thanks Luther for higher criticism and Rosicrucian Protestantism becoming deist millenialism too.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

@@thomasglass9491 So you do a one temporary one verse move to overrule all other verses and inviolate the councils? Do you understand those distinctions snd their history left out in the video to justify Lutheran succession through the very church it denies (and will likely turn to for ecumenism), while trying to dismiss its real competition in the EO. ✅Sounds like the direction the papacy and its continuing changes took and caused the reformation and enlightenment, putting Christianity on the chopping block of its own reason instead of following the way. This is also why scholsticism and absolute divine simplicity, Classical Natural Theism, neoplatonism outside St. Maximos, and the Five Ways of Aquinas keep losing to Orthodoxy in discussion, no different than when the Muslims come at us, the Jews, the pagan vitalists, John Vervaeke with the sum total of academia and science all fail against Orthodox theology. Dr. Cooper also agreed to reciprical reconstruction of Christianity with Dr. Vervaeke, but has to exclude Christian mysticism due to the fact it was abused in Catholicism and radical protestantism not having the proper means to keep it in its proper place, the same as the one and many problems Rushdoony saw, but with no apostolic succession, monastic branch and his papal use of the Bible in a sort of Sola Scriptura ends up marrying his daughter. The Filoque is where this all started.

[@thomasglass9491]

@@Ac-ip5hd First problem that you have is that Revelation 22:1 is not temporary, the setting of it is in the eternity. Second, what other verses are against the filioque? NONE! Third, the Bible is the final authority, and overrules any council. Also there is not ecunemical council that overruled the filioque.

[@Ben_G_Biegler]

Wow, a Protestant defending the Filioque, this is great!

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

not at all. defending the filioque, regardless of religion, is heresy.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks for outputting this. Prepare for some pushback from the Orthodox :) . Btw, I know what its like to have something deleted. I had a 3 hour presentation go poof once. Not a good feeling.

[@NoahHolsclaw]

Very happy to see this addressed I would recommend everyone read saint Anselm on this subject.

[@guesswho22peekaboo]

I'm still incredibly confused lol! I was raised Catholic. Always had trouble trying to grasp the concept of the Trinity. I recently became interested in Orthodox Christianity and am now on a rabbit hole figuring this stuff out haha. Thank you for the presentation 🙏

[@KirstyE3]

SAME!!

[@trexbisnar2541]

Hello! A mango fruit has the skin, the meat, and the seed. They are different, they have different purposes, but they are the same mango. This ain't much, but I hope this analogy helps, brother.

[@clivejames5058]

It's easy: Just read John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me". Unlike the Roman Catholics, The Orthodox Church has this right.

[@keircampbell9374]

@@trexbisnar2541 are you aware that you’ve accidentally taught a heresy That’s modalism, Patrick

[@christophersalinas2722]

@@clivejames5058Bud. The Catholic Church also affirms the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

[@djpodesta]

I don’t agree with many Catholic doctrines, but I found the _Filioque_ to be a correct understanding regarding the Holy Spirit and the Trinity when I first investigated the controversy.

[@geordiewishart1683]

I used to believe in the Trinity until I read an article which listed various Catholic errors which remained in the church post Reformation, the Trinity being top of the list.

[@djpodesta]

@@geordiewishart1683 I understand your thinking, but, as with all variations of doctrine, if you start with any of the various presuppositions, you will find conflict with every doctrine. However, if you accept the presupposition of a Trinity, the Filioque clause best fits every scripture on the topic. Other than that, sound arguments can be made for each; One God and an earthly Messiah, Jesus as the Son of God or a Trinitarian God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) - depending upon what you call Holy Scripture; ie, a harmonised New Testament being read back into the Old Testament. I agree that the Catholics have many errors, with one major error being that they gave us the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity.

[@pjwg]

The history behind Photios is really interesting. It helps understand the politicisation of theology as a tool to leverage imperial power East-West. And as you rightly said, it was on both sides.

[@david_porthouse]

Latin has an unusual -que construction which would enable us to distinguish between a partnership in Scots Law, McDonald Campbellque, and a partnership in English law, Smith et Jones. The point is that the Scots partnership is a third new entity in its own right, while the English partnership is not. An example of the use of this construction is Senatus Populusque Romanus which means something different from Senatus et Populus Romani. Filioque is easy to slip in to the Latin creed, rather as changing the name of a business from Jones the Greengrocer to Jones and Son Greengrocers would hardly be noticed. However the back-translation into Greek is another matter. We cannot translate the -que construction directly, and the Greek verb is more like originate than proceed. These semantic issues should be born in mind when discussing the Filioque.

[@williamfarmer5154]

As an Orthodox Christian, I don't know where to begin to express our disagreements with Western Trinitarian theology concerning the relationships among the persons of the Holy Trinity. I would just say that in John 15:26 Jesus says "the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father" but you, (meaning you Westerners, not you personally Dr. Cooper) apparently prefer not to take His word for it. John 16:7 and 14:26 are about Jesus or the Father sending the Spirit (2000 years ago), not about the eternal procession of the Spirit . Matthew 3:11 is about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, again 2000 years ago, not about His eternal procession from the Father. John 16:13-15 is clearly not about the eternal procession of the Spirit, but about the Spirit glorifying Christ. John 20:22 is again about Jesus giving the Spirit to the apostles, not the eternal procession. We completely agree that the Spirit is of the Son as well as the Father. But this is not to say that the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Son. That is a different matter. Sorry to be so pedantic, but I felt that someone had to speak for the Orthodox view.

[@stephenkneller6435]

What then is the relationship between the Christ and the Holy Spirit? If the Father begat Christ, and the Spirit proceeds from only the Father, then what is the relationship between Christ and the Spirit?

[@William_Farmer]

@@stephenkneller6435 Christ and the Holy Spirit are both members of the Holy Trinity. They share the same divine nature, and belong to the same Godhead. The Holy Spirit does not have to proceed from Christ to have a relationship with Him. The Father alone is the source of the Holy Trinity. Christ has sent the Holy Spirit into the world, as described in Acts chapter 2. I hope this answers your question.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

​@William_Farmer the problem is if u say the spirit proceeds from the father alone there is no way to say proceeds or spirated cannot be equated with beggeting. Ita just a word u use to help your own mind but In reality they are indistinguishable. Therefore ur distinction between the son and spirit fails. There is none. It's just a linguistic construct that doesn't mean anything. The spirit must also come from the son to confirm their individual personhood and to reaffirm their divinity.

[@klw272]

@@TheGreekCatholiccan you explain a little more why they are indistinguishable? I understand that two words can have the same meaning but it is how scripture describes the relationships directly. The idea that procession means the same thing as begotten, and thus need an explicit relationship between the Son and the Spirit, makes no sense behind the reasoning of saying “only begotten” in the creed.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

@klw272 when theologians talk about the eternal Godhead, they are talking in a sense that is beyond scripture. It's not enough to explain by scripture alone. For example, an atheist or Muslim or anyone else who isn't Christian can simply say we don't have scripture as authority. Therefore, your idea of spiration and begeton, biblically, means nothing to me. By prombligating that the spirit proceeds from the father alone, what you're left with is two separate processions that's indistinguishable. The only way to distinguish the two on a pure philosophical/ theological coherence is to distinguish the spirit and the son by principle of origin. The father has no origin. He begets the son (father son distinction) the son has all the father has, and both spirate the spirit in a single procession. (Distinction between the father, son to spirit). The spirit receives the procession and, in turn, proceeds back to both in love, cementing their bond. This way, 1. They all have a distinction of persons. 2 they all have the power in procession. The creed didn't mention the procession of the son because the cappodocian fathers present at the council were refuting the Macedonians who taught that the spirit proceeded from the son alone in a temporal manner. Therefore, it was prudent to leave procession via the son as we avoid further confusion and scandal. It was typical of heretics like Arians to clutch onto any straw and run with it. As a side note, the scripture is very clear that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son. But the orthodox in the 13th century invented a real distinction via Palamism in saying that the inner Godheads procession and God's temporal mission are different and don't reflect each other. This was extremely novel and is the only way they can read into the scripture and early fathers their error.

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

I’ve always found it unfortunate that the West grabbed hold of the very part of Augustine’s work on the Trinity that he himself said was speculative and also said he was leaving to the church to determine whether it was correct

[@IC_XC_NIKA]

Exactly 🎯🎯

[@SammyJ..]

The Church confirmed that he was correct 🙂.

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

@@SammyJ.. one half of the church maybe.

[@thomasglass9491]

And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Revelation 22:1

[@AnUnhappyBusiness]

The Creed in Greek does not use μονογενες to refer to eternal generation, it uses γεννηθεντα. This word occurs in the NT quotations of Psalm 2. This is why Psalm 2 typically comes up in the defense of generation among the 4th century fathers

[@ro6ti]

If saying, "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father," does not confirm the Father's divinity, it does not confirm the Son's divinity, either. The phrase "Who proceeds from the Father" was meant to convey the divinity of the Spirit according to eternal origin. Adding the filioque confuses this intention and switches the focus away from the divine nature of the Holy Spirit to the Son's divinity. Instead of clarifying the nature and origin of the Holy Spirit, it introduces endless questions about economy. Since the divinity of the Son was already well-established in the previous section, and because these lines were originally intended to focus on the Holy Spirit's divinity and eternal origin using Christ's own words, leaving off the Filioque leads to more clarity, which is more proper. Adding to the Creed without confirming universally should be enough of a reason to leave it out, but that's been covered plenty.

[@raykidder906]

I have to wonder why you did not bring up these Biblical verses: - This is from Luke 1 (NKJV) concerning Mary: 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, then why was the incarnation of Jesus through the Holy Spirit? - This is from Luke 4 (NKJV) concerning the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist: 1 Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, If the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, then why was the leading of Jesus by the Holy Spirit? These verses suggest to me that the insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed goes against the meaning of these texts as these teach a type of subordination of the Son to the Holy Spirit.

[@ro6ti]

@@raykidder906 I didn't bring up any verses, so you shouldn't wonder too much.

[@antonmeemana1261]

A very substantial exposition indeed. Thanks a lot, Sir.

[@danielhixon8209]

Great video, sir. I have for many years held that the Filoque is true & correct in terms of the theology, but should not have been added to the ecumenical creed without the authority of an ecumenical council authorizing the change. I am happy to see the Anglican Church in North America allowing congregations to omit this phrase, and use the original form of the creed - but not requiring them to do so.

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

Not at all. the filioque is a catholic addition that is heretical and false. The Holy Spirit factually cannot proceed from The Son as well, because doing so would mean The Son created Holyness also. Almost as if saying Christ is the creator. Christ isnt the creator. The Father is. Yes the Son is a big key in the matter, because He is part of The Trinity, but he didnt create Holyness, the universe, and The Kingdom Of Heaven. he was simply the second biggest part of it.

[@CrystallineWyvern]

I think the "through the Son" understanding makes the most sense overall and would be the ideal mediation between East and West.

[@StewForTheGospel]

The issue is the language of “through the Son.” It maintains the eternal origin of the Spirit from the Father, but confuses the procession that needs to come directly from the Father. Saying, “through the Son” could mean that the Spirit is received from the origin of the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit needs to proceed from the Father, the holy fathers made this clear at the second ecumenical council. So to this point I would argue the western use of Filioque is more correct than “through the Son.” Catholics would agree. Now, I also have an issue with the western language of Filioque. If the Spirit’s procession directly from the Father is necessary, according to the second ecumenical council, is it the same procession from the Son? I would argue it’s a different type of procession because the Son is not the eternal origin of the Spirit. If the Son is an eternal origin of the Spirit with the Father, you confuse the persons. If then, procession of the Spirit from the Son is different from the Father, communicating that procession in the manner of the Filioque isn’t correct because it makes the procession out to be the same. It may need an additional sentence to better communicate this unique procession from the Son. However, this can’t happen because the creed isn’t suppose to be changed, according the third ecumenical council. Therefore, it’s also wrong to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. We can counter the Arian Heresy with better teaching to explain the unique relationship between the Spirit and Son. The East does this. The Son is not begotten of the Spirit, but conceived. The Spirit is requested by the Son who mediates for us to the Father. This is a type of procession from the Son that is different from the Father’s processing of the Spirit. When Jesus breaths on them and says, “receive the Holy Spirit,” do we actually see them receiving the Spirit? John writes clearly that Jesus says the Spirit won’t come till He goes to the Father. Additionally, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus commands the disciples to wait in Jerusalem till the Spirit comes. We know this future event to be Pentecost in Acts. I’m not suggesting deception on the part of John. Instead, we learn that no action by a Person of the Trinity can be done independently. The work of the Spirit can’t be achieved without the act of the Father and the Son, and vice versa. Therefore, what Jesus Speaks in time, transcends creation in communion with the Father and the Spirit, so later in time it happens according to God’s perfect will.

[@CrystallineWyvern]

@StewForTheGospel Thanks for the thoughtful comment; as a Catholic I essentially agree with the points you make here. As Jordan mentioned the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same manner as from the Father, which I think is important to note and which the Creedal formulation doesn't make clear in isolation. That said I think the language of "through" the Son is helpful in pointing toward this mediatory role of the Son (and as you noted, all three Persons are involved in divine acts and what Jesus says in time also transcends it), and has some precedent in the writing of Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas who affirm a role for the Son in the eternal procession of the Spirit.

[@StewForTheGospel]

It is encouraging to see how close everyone is. It does seem like we believe the same thing. I would just correct a sentence from my first paragraph. Saying, "through the Son" could mean the Spirit is received from the origin of the Father through the Son alone. Thus, I don’t think “through the Son” is appropriate. I’m trying to think about it from a fresh perspective, not from what you and I already know or agree on. Maybe it could be a whole new sentence? Like, “who proceeds directly from the Father, and from the Father through the Son.” Thanks for your kind response.

[@CrystallineWyvern]

@StewForTheGospel I've had this exact same thought on that potential conundrum. Your proposal makes a lot of sense to me, though I'd want to defer to better theologians and hope there is some implication for this in the tradition as it seems there is. I am encouraged as well, and appreciate your words likewise.

[@annakimborahpa]

Thank you for this presentation. Response: 1. Dr. Cooper's biblical argument for the Filioque A. Dr. Cooper states in his Conclusion at 1:04:37-50: "...even though I didn't spend a ton of time on the biblical text, the testimony does seem to be rather clear, in my view, that the Spirit is of the Son as He is of the Father..." B. All of the biblical texts Dr. Cooper quotes appear to EXPLICITLY support the position that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son in the extra Trinitate relations, i.e., the relations between God and His creation. C. However, it is only by presuming a supposition that the extra Trinitate relations reflect the intra Trinitate relations (God's inner life), that these texts can argue that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as from the Father. Otherwise, these biblical texts appear to just IMPLICITLY allude to the position Dr. Cooper argues for. D. Not mentioned in Dr. Cooper's Scriptural Argument are the many texts that argue from the position of Christ's authority given to Him by the Father. One example of this would be John 16:15, ESV: "All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he [the Holy Spirit mentioned in the previous verses] will take what is Mine and declare it to you. E. It would follow that if the Son has received all things from the Father, that would include the gift from the Father of the Holy Spirit to also proceed eternally from the Son. F. This argument from Christ's authority was employed at the Council of Florence (1431 - 1449), recognized as the seventeenth ecumenical council by the Catholic Church. G. As a result of the Council of Florence, the ground was set for the eventual reunification of several small Eastern Church communities with the Catholic Church in subsequent centuries. H. So it would appear by implication that the biblical argument from Christ's authority for the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Son as well as from the Father was the most effective one thus far in reconciling the Eastern and Western Churches regarding the differences over the Filioque. 2. From a Catholic perspective: The Western Tradition of Augustine of Hippo & the Bishop of Rome A. On June 30, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Solemni Hac Liturgia (Credo of the People of God) an apostolic letter in the form of a moto proprio (a rescript initiated and issued by the pope of his own accord and apart from the advice of others). B. In the Profession of Faith under section The Father, the first sentence of No. 10 reads: "We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son; in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love." C. This confirms the position of Augustine of Hippo that Dr. Cooper speaks of at 17:27-35: "... so that for Augustine, the Spirit is described as the love that exists between the Father and the Son, so the Spirit is the eternal love between Father and Son." D. For Catholics, since 1968 the Credo of the People of God's No. 10 has become non-negotiable regarding the identity of the Holy Spirit as the eternal love between the Father and the Son. This is because the document is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium by a pope, the Bishop of Rome and successor to St Peter, in his teaching the universal church, and requires the assent of mind and will by the faithful. 3. Irenaeus of Lyons, France: Bridge Between Eastern and Western Churches A. Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202 AD) was of Greek origin from Smyrna who knew Polycarp, bishop of that city, who in turn had known John, beloved disciple of Jesus and one of the twelve apostles. John was the author of the fourth and last gospel of the New Testament, in addition to several other canonical writings. B. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches regard Irenaeus as a saint and celebrate his feast day on their respective liturgical calendars. In January of 2022 after receiving requests from numerous bishops conferences, Pope Francis declared St. Irenaeus of Lyons to be Doctor of Unity of the Church. As the new 38th Doctor of the Catholic Church, the writings of Irenaeus are now given greater weight and deference. C. Dr. Cooper speaking at 34:46-51: "You have this language from Irenaeus that the Son and the Spirit are the two hands of the Father." Dr. Cooper appears to be referring to this passage from Irenaeus' work Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 6, No. 1 [written c.180]: "Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modeled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." D. Since the Orthodox Churches are so rightfully insistent on emphasizing the Father's monarchy in discussions about the Holy Trinity regarding the Western addition of the Filioque to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, these words of their Greek saint Irenaeus readily affirm their position of the Father's ultimate authority as the source of all divinity in the Godhead. E. However, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands of the Father in an analogy initially premised on the human body, then a distinction readily can be made between them. Irenaeus himself stated that these two divine hands were involved in the creation of man revealed in Genesis 1:29 (ESV): "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." F. Quoting the Scientific American's November 1, 2001 article 'Why are more people right-handed?': "Most humans (say 70 percent to 95 percent) are right-handed, a minority (say 5 percent to 30 percent) are left-handed, and an indeterminate number of people are probably best described as ambidextrous." G. Therefore, when this prominence of right handedness is extrapolated to authority, to sit at the right hand indicates the second greatest position and ahead of one who sits at the left hand. H. The Bible confirms this regarding Christ's authority in Hebrews 1:3, ESV: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high ..." I. Based upon Hebrews 1:3, the Eastern Orthodox Churches would readily agree with, if not accept as authoritative, the sixth article of the Apostles Creed regarding "...Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord" (article two): " ... (he) ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty..." The Apostles Creed is considered authoritative in the Catholic Church and may be recited as an alternate at the Liturgy's Profession of Faith. In addition, according to the website Lutheran Spokesman of January 2, 2019, "When the Lutheran church assembled the Book of Concord, a public defense of our doctrine, the Apostles’ Creed was a wise choice for the first page." J. So if the Son 'is' (Irenaeus) or 'at the' (Hebrews) right hand of the Father, it would follow then that the Holy Spirit 'is' or 'at the' the left hand of the Father. K. Therefore, it would appear that there is a moral hierarchy in the ordering of Persons as when Jesus Christ, as part of what is referred to as The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 (ESV), proclaimed: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." L. Indeed, for those churches that regard baptism as a sacrament whose action performs regeneration, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian and various Protestants including Lutheran, the rite would be null and void if there was an incorrect ordering of Persons, say if one was erroneously baptized 'in the name of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit and of the Son'. M. Further, with regard to the Holy Spirit as the left hand of the Father based upon the analogy with the human person, the left hand supports the right hand in the actions of the majority population of right-handers, and in the same way that the right hand supports the left hand in the minority population of left-handers. N. Since this integral connection between the right and left hands exists as one of leading and supporting in the majority of right handers and vice versa in left handers, might this then be reflective of the interior relations of the Holy Trinity regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit beneath the directing headship of the Father, where the Son secondarily leads and the Holy Spirit lends support? 4. Possibly Bridging East and West Regarding the Filioque? A Syllogism A. Since it is now de fide (of the faith) since 1968 for Catholics to believe that the Holy Spirit is the eternal love between the Father and of the Son (echoing Augustine of Hippo), meaning in action terms that: (1) the Father loves the Son and (B) the Son loves the Father, (both loves existing as the Person of the Holy Spirit), - and - B. according to Irenaeus, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands of the Father, the Son at the right hand leading and the Holy Spirit at the left hand supporting the Son beneath Their Father's origin without origin, - then - C. might the Filioque clause, that was added by the West to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, be understood that the Person of the Holy Spirit (1) proceeds directly from the Father as the initial love of the Father for the Son and (2) secondarily acts in support of the Son as the reciprocal love of the Son for the Father? In the same way that the left hand supports the right hand in actions directed by the human brain? This relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit would then be one of dependence of the Son upon the Holy Spirit in order to love the Father, thereby indicating a lesser authority and prominence of the Son in relation to the Father's monarchy.

[@KirstyE3]

Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly how I see it. But then doesn't that make it of the eastern mindset?

[@annakimborahpa]

@@KirstyE3 Well, that's reassuring. In answer to your question: 1. It includes the Eastern mindset regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father THROUGH the Son. 2. Also articulated is the Western mindset, (A) inherited from 5th century St. Augustine of Hippo and (B) taught by St. Pope Paul VI in 1968, that the identity of the Holy Spirit IS the ETERNAL LOVE of the Father and Son that originates in the Father, who is the source of all divinity (known as the Father's Monarchy in the East). 3. Therefore, when I recite the Nicene Creed on Sundays in my Latin Rite Novus Ordo Catholic parish, when it comes to the Filioque clause regarding the Holy Spirit "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son," I understand that to mean "Who proceeds from the Father through the Son as Their Eternal Love." That understanding includes both (A) a clarification of the Filioque and (B) a doctrinal development of the Filioque. 4. By the way, the thumbnail image Dr. Cooper employs for this video is the icon The Hospitality of Abraham/The Trinity by 15th century Russian Orthodox painter St. Andre Rublev. It is considered one of the most universal icons in that it resonates with Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic Christians. When contemplating this icon, I see all of the mysterious interior relations of the One God in Three Persons displayed to include the Filioque, as well as the obvious representation of the Son's Incarnation.

[@rhondarockhound622]

I like that you did power points. This way I can take a screenshot when I want to save. -Or could you could share your PP?

[@natebozeman4510]

Great presentation as always. Really learned a lot!

[@AdithiaKusno]

Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology asked how Eastern Catholics view Second Lyons and Florence. In that segment Dr Jared Goff publicly defended Franciscan and Palamite views that the Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae is compatible with Franciscan and Palamite view on the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit from the Son quod essentia. Quod essentia is crucial because St Palamas accepted eternal manifestation from the Son while condemned diarchic Filioque as Satanic. As an Eastern Catholic I would recommend inviting Dr Jared Goff and Fr Christiaan Kappes on how to reconcile Franciscan and Palamite views on the eternal manifestation from the Son quod essentia.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

Lofton is The Popes Snopes.

[@AdithiaKusno]

@@Ac-ip5hd he was shocked actually because many Latin Catholics read Second Lyons and Florence as affirming diarchic Filioque which is contrary to Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox views. In diarchic view the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is originated by the Son. In monarchic Filioque the Son communicate the Son's essence to the Holy Spirit. This is where quod essentia become crucial. St Augustine and St Aquinas favor quod essentia interpretation. This is why the Father is the principaliter because He alone originate the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. But together with the Son quod essentia the Holy Spirit eternally manifested from both. This is clarified in 1995 Joint Declaration on Filioque. Rome clarified that Latin word procedere had in mind proiena (communication of essence from both) and not ekporeusis (hypostatic origination from both). After 1995 clarification the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware stated that Filioque no longer a dogmatic issue.

[@Ac-ip5hd]

@@AdithiaKusno I don’t care and will stick with our contemporary Saints on ecumenism. It’s obvious to discern what is going down and what the schisms unleashed. I mean no ill will. God bless you.

[@Scoma19]

I've been looking forward to this. Thank you Dr Cooper.

[@drewpanyko5424]

Good morning, Dr. Cooper. Are you familiar with the streaming series "The Chosen"? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your take on it. Thanks again for all you do for the Church.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I haven't watched it.

[@stevereason6931]

Drew Panyko What is your take on The Chosen series? I have watched it numerous times and my wife and I participated as extras in the Feeding of the 5000 episode. It's easy to critique the series if one chooses to compare The Chosen stories to the Bible. Personally, for one example, I don't like how Jesus is portrayed when preparing his speech for the Sermon of the Mount since Scripture clearly points out that Jesus only said what he heard from the Father, so there would not have been a need to rehearse the Sermon. However the creator of The Chosen clearly states The Chosen is NOT the Bible and encourages everyone to read the Bible to gain understanding of Jesus. I believe The Chosen is serving as an excellent evangelical tool since there are thousands of testimonies of people who have never read or have not read the Bible in a long time that are now reading the Bible and studying God's word. Filling one's mind with God's word is an excellent start in understanding God/Jesus. There are many testimonies of people have come to faith as a result of seeing The Chosen series. If one does not want to support The Chosen that is a freedom we have in Christ. Ultimately we will all be judged on how we use our gifts and resources that God has richly supplied to each of His chosen ones to further His kingdom, or use on our own selfish desires.

[@Athabrose]

I enjoy The Chosen. Its no replacement for the scripture so I just enjoy it for what it is. There are some compelling scenes that are biblical and some of the artistic liberty works well. Its great for what it is and the show creator urges folks to read scripture. Its definitely better than 99% of movies and shows about Jesus that are out there. Enjoy it for what it is and stay grounded in scripture. My 2 cents.

[@drewpanyko5424]

@@Athabrose agreed! I couldn't have said it better myself (lol)!

[@MortenBendiksen]

The church always has those who take the spectral intellectual game too seriously. Nobody in the spirit cares about this too much, and love each other across confessional boundaries just the same. Those who use these minutia of differences as some reason to consider others outside or inside some boundary, are the ones who put themselves on the actual outside of the community of God's children, who know each other by that they love each other.

[@MinaDKSBMSB]

I agree humanity has to rely on God’s incomprehensible mercy and love regarding these matters. We always have to remember we are discussing mysteries that are beyond us. However, we do need to take caution that the truth of salvation is not polluted or compromised. Paul takes very strong stances against incorrect teachings and goes as far as saying in Galatians, “let them be under God’s curse.” We pray that the Holy Spirit opens our minds and hearts to the understanding intended and to forgive any ignorance that results from our human comprehension.

[@donatist59]

As an Episcopalian, and thus "western" in outlook, it still seems to me that the Orthodox position makes more logical and scriptural sense here.

[@CrystallineWyvern]

I think the "through the Son" understanding makes the most sense overall and would be the ideal mediation between East and West.

[@ThatsMyChad]

Thanks for the video Dr. Cooper! I actually also wanna echo my appreciation for the slides, it helps me find these resources while I listen so I can write them down! I have a question about what you bring up at 12:54, that you think the west could in theory be right about the Filioque theologically but be wrong ecclesiologically. My question is if an individual bishop or congregation decides to change their recitation of the Filioque in their own church by adding something theologically true to it (let’s say that baptism saves you for this example), but it was not original to the agreed upon formula, would this be okay? My problem is I would find this incredibly problematic. I don’t think we can add true statements to this, because the point of having an agreed upon creed and giving it intellectual ascent is to say “we contain the belief of the original church”. It’s not just merely a correct formulation of doctrines because then we shouldn’t feel bad shoe-horning any correct doctrine into it, shouldn’t we? And since I agree with you that I’m unconvinced of papal claims, I certainly do struggle with its recitation during a church service. Not even because I understand the theological implications, but simply because I don’t feel the pope, or any bishop/priest or pastor can just add true (or untrue) statements to a once agreed upon formula of belief. I think it just invalidates the point of having it in the first place. But I do appreciate your video thus far and I will continue listening and adding comments if I have any 😊

[@derrickbonsell]

OrthodoxWiki has this to say on the subject of the filioque within the Eastern Orthodox: "There has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy. That being said, however, it has been regarded as heretical by multiple Orthodox saints, including Ss. Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory Palamas (the three Pillars of Orthodoxy). At the Third Ecumenical Council and the "Photian" council of 879-880 (both councils Rome signed onto), all changes to the Creed are anathematized. Further, it is explicitly denounced as heretical by the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs."

[@ryanward72]

OrthodoxWiki is mistaken on this point. The filioque was condemned in the 1285 Synod of Blachernae, which was convened to respond to the proposed union at the Council of Lyons.

[@ancientz7547]

The confusion that arises for me is that it seems Dr Cooper’s argument postulates that there is a distinction in processions (as he explicitly says the Spirit doesn’t proceed from the Father and the Son in the same way), but then rejects the Eastern distinction in the processions.

[@stackofbooks7306]

The good thing is nobody cares if he rejects the eastern distinction because he’s entirely irrelevant to the issue. As are all modern protestants who just love to share their opinions instead of having the humility to accept what the church fathers and saints and councils laid out for the first 1000 years.

[@evren.nikolaos]

I didn’t really understand what the distinction he was trying to make even was. The West will say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one cause and it’s one spiration but somehow there’s some sort of distinction that Dr. Cooper doesn’t really elaborate on

[@theeasternjourney]

Saint Augustine has admitted that what he was writing can be wrong and that he doesn't know greek, so if you want to know about the Trinity, he says, you are suppose to go to the Greeks. I will say that he teaches eternal manifestation. Ref. On Christian Doctrine, Chapter 15.22, De Trinitate Chapter 8.17 and some other places for correction or for Greek. Regarding hypostatic properties, please re-read Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril, Maximus and John Damascus. For example \There is one nature of Cause; another of Instrument; another of Place. So the Son is by nature distinct from the Father, as the tool from the craftsman; and the Spirit is distinct in so far as place or time is distinguished from the nature of tools or from that of them that handle them. Saint Basil the Great De Spiritu Sancto' and 'The characteristics of the Father's Person(hypostasis) cannot be transferred to the Son or to the Spirit, nor on the other hand, can that of the Son be accommodated to one of the others, or the property of the Spirit be attributed to the Father and the Son.Treaties on the Lord's Prayer, Sermon #3' You could also bring up Maximus, for he says "For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV - but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B)\ Regarding relationship between Son and Spirit, Eastern Orthodox would say that Spirit and Son abide in each other and that Son in that moment shares with the Spirit every attribute that he has inherited from the Father and gives it to the Spirit. This here is not filioque, because Spirit is already caused, Son is merely just sharing with the Spirit what he has received from the Father, namely attributes, or that is to say energies. So, that is what though the Son entails (in my understanding) If you say that Holy Spirit proceeds by the act of will you are essentially saying that Holy Spirit is a creature. If economic =, or as you said somewhat equal to, eternal then Son is begotten by the Spirit, ref. Isaiah 48:16 and Matthew 1:18-20. For those wondering EED is patristic and biblical, ref. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua 2.42 & 10.17; 'The term Godhead is significant of energy,and not of nature', On Not Three Gods, Saint Gregory of Nyssa; Epistle 234, Saint Basil the Great; there are far more which are even more convincing but sadly I don't have enough space to write them all. "How do we distinguish persons?" We distinguish them by their mode of existence. For example Son. Wherefore all the qualities the Father has are the Son’s, save that the Father is unbegotten1525, and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity, but only a different mode of coming into existence. We have an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him), and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam’s son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam’s rib (for she was not begotten). These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into existence.

[@BrianLassek]

It seems much of the problem of semantics here stems from describing the eternal nature of God using temporal language. People quickly forget that "begotten not made" language takes Jesus' nature out of our timeline. And the "sending" of the spirit is a movement of, not the creation of, the eternal Holy spirit. Thus, creating an "order of precession" is a description of God revealing aspects of Himself to us, not the creation or beginning of those aspects. The eternal nature of God reconciles many of the issues people create for themselves when they try to force God into a timeline.

[@jdhawthorne1759]

"The distinction between hypothetic procession and economic procession is really arbitrary." *shows the text where it literally says from the Father and the Son sends him* "now this doesn't mean what they think it means. its just not explicitly saying our view"

[@ShenanigansGeek]

This seems like two groups of people fighting over split hairs. Both sides straw man each others arguments when in reality, they're basically arguing for the same position. But we christians divide over anything we can. Carpet color, music, a Latin phrase, et al. Let's hope one day we can be one church again.

[@dave1370]

So, we Confessional Lutherans would agree the the Father is the "Source" though, right?

[@JsCht-iv3fr]

Hello! Could anyone, please, help me? I need an advice on how a foreigner can enter a Lutheran seminary in the US. I'm coming from a country that is under hard sanctions currently, and here we have only two very small Lutheran seminaries, with one being almost died-out, and the other too small. I want to study theology, with the perspective of becoming a pastor in my country. The thing is that I want to get a decent theological knowledge, a decent degree.

[@glenhowell6909]

You are on target. Thanks. Exploring the very nature of God is our very calling and is the very meaning of life. Keep it up!

[@ewene2656]

If you haven't already done so, this would make a great subject for a book. I loved your two books on Christification/Union with Christ and its parallels with EO Theosis. I'd love to read a similar volume defending the traditional Western doctrine of the Filioque with interaction and critique of the EO position.

[@magnusaspenberg4780]

This is the best lecture on the subject I have heard so far, ever. So it seems that whole dispute boils down to what "proceed" means, and that it can have slightly different meanings. Could one perhaps say "ontological procession" from the Father and "secondary ontological procession" from the Son? To me it seems at least that the statement "the Son does not proceed from the Father" is wrong, precisely bc procession can mean both types of procession. Now, the last question is then; is it semantically correct to include one word that have different meanings in the same sentence?

[@zekdom]

Time-stamp 33:50 - procession from the Father and Son doesn’t have to be exactly the same; we could say “from the Father, through the Son”.

[@andrewternet8370]

Council of Florence says otherwise.

[@clivejames5058]

I don't know why there is any debate. The Bible is clear: John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

[@paulblase3955]

I personally think that some of these early church fathers - and modern theologians, go far beyond what is revealed in Scripture and start following the path of what seems rational. The Father, Son, and Spirit exist and have unique roles. That is all we're told.

[@MajorMustang1117]

To stick with the K.I.S.S motto.... The Creed didnt have it. So it shouldnt have it. You can argue the semantics later. Just leave what the ancient Church established alone.

[@pretty-white-lamb]

Dr. Cooper, I used to subscribe to the filioque for more or less the same reasons you are stating. For the record, I'm a Western Christian and I'm not Eastern Orthodox or thinking of becoming one - but I do think they are more or less correct on this and that the Western, Augustinian/Thomistic view is faulty. It makes the mystery of the Holy Trinity to be too geometrical, too much a kind of mathematical puzzle. It puts the notion of the divine Triad before the Persons, and reasons backwards from the Triad to the Persons; likewise it conceives of "God" first and foremost as referring to "Holy Trinity", whereas scripturally "God" does and ought to refer primarily to the Father. The Father from all eternity is the uncaused possessor of the Godhead, and He bestows the Godhead upon the Son through begetting, and upon the Spirit through procession. We don't make ourselves "more Christian" by putting the Holy Trinity before the Father as the uncaused cause of the Godhead, just because the Trinity happens to be one of the great Christian revelations. All we do is pervert scripture and make ourselves more inaccessible to Jews and Muslims, as well as (I think) to our own people. The filioquist view as developed by Aquinas is that the Godhead is immediately possessed by the Trinity, and that the Persons are "substantial relations" in that uncaused Trinity. I think this is a piece of quite incomprehensible rationalism that turns the Mystery of the Trinity into mere Perplexity. Lastly, I don't think the Eastern view fails to account for any eternal relationship between Father and Son; it only prevents our confusing that eternal relationship with the Spirit's eternal cause or origin. The Father and Son still have a very clear social relationship in and with/between the Spirit - such that we can affirm that the Spirit is the "splendour of the Son," such that the "Spirit proceeds (socially, relationally, missionally) from the Father and through the Son," and such that the Spirit is indeed the "love between the Father and the Son" - but without making these social relations to be the cause of the Spirit's eternal procession. The Son is very clearly related to the Spirit, but in the manner of Our Lord's baptism - with the Father bestowing the Spirit upon the Son. The filioquist view is that the Father and Son are co-causally bestowing the Spirit upon each other; this isn't scriptural. I could go on but I need to do a lot more reading and prayer. The main reason why I express this view with confidence is that it is helping me spiritually. When I held to the Western view, my thinking about the Trinity used to send my head spinning, and I always assumed that's just because it is so great a mystery; but now I've come to a more Eastern view, I am far less intellectually perplexed while the divine mystery itself seems far more luminous and authentically mysterious. In particular, the Person of the Holy Spirit I am now able to approach much more as His own Person, whereas before I could hardly make Him distinct from the Father and the Son. God bless.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

The will that the Trinity shares is the Will of the Father, so, if the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Divine Will, then it is the Will of the Father. Or, if you say that this will is also the Son's will, then you would also have to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The difference of begetting from procession is there. Eve proceeds from Adam where Adam begets Seth. We know there is a difference there, it has not really been revealed what the diffrence exactly is.

[@gerryrepash6706]

The Eastern Catholic Church has been allowed to not use the "Filioque" because at least those churches that are in union with Rome have the same understanding as we do, but they want to go back and use original formulation. Probably because Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't like to change anything that has been set down. But the Churches in union with Rome do understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

[@kesroner]

Excellent presentation Dr. Cooper i really enjoyed it.

[@DrJordanBCooper]

Thanks!

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Is Anselm the best treatment of the filioque in the West? What about Aquinas and Scotus? Of course there is Augustine. What are the best scholarly books/treatment/s of the filioque in your opinion? Do you think the bridge statement, "proceeds From the Father thru the Son by the Holy Spirit" helpful between the East and the West?

[@evren.nikolaos]

I'm not Jordan obviously but with regards to the bridge statement, the Orthodox Church actually has no issue with the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. This idea is the basis for the Orthodox doctrines of the eternal manifestation and the energetic procession of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that that's not the Filioque as it was dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Florence and then subsequently picked up by the Protestant Reformers, which explicitly say the Spirit receives His hypostatic origin from the Father and the Son as from one cause. Edward Siecienski's book on the Filioque is a really good introduction to the history of the doctrine and the fallout between the East and the West over it.

[@danielklassen1513]

I’ve been frustrated trying to understand this issue but after watching this I feely ok

[@MaikelPaijovka]

it's a very nice explanation, thank you so much!

[@user-iz4rs1qm5k]

You should make a program looking into the church fathers upon the filioque

[@David-lb3tp]

Yes churches don't need the bishop of Rome to exist but they surely need him to make any sense epistemologically. This video is by accident a good example: most of this was a history lesson and the biblical treatment lasted about as long as it took to read the relevant passages. The anti-filioquists have the same Bible, good teacher Dr. Cooper!

[@stackofbooks7306]

The pope and epistemology are two things that don’t go together

[@danstoian7721]

12:15 Ephesus used the original Nicean Creed, by the logic of the East, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed is a violation of Ehpesus. Even more so given that creed preceded the Council of Ephesus. Orthodox, as usually, are being unnecessarily rigid and ungracious.

[@JohnHazell-ut2up]

I am eastern orthodox. I was taught something different. To say the Spirit "proceeds" is perhaps not the best terminology. When the EO say the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is glorified together with the Father and the Son, what they mean from "proceed" is that the Holy Spirit has his origin in the Father. From other gospel verses we know quite clearly that the Father and the Son SEND the Holy Spirit, but that proceeds speaks of the Holy Spirit's origin only.

[@anyanyanyanyanyany3551]

25:48 That's because they didn't watch Dr. Cooper's videos on proper etiquette 😂.

[@djfunkychicken]

Bottom line : there is no reason to justify the adding or changing of the original text

[@Yasmirr]

Thanks for this very interesting. As an Anglican of the anglocatholic type, I think that we should try to reach a consensus with our Orthodox brothers on this particular issue and go some way to heal the rift.

[@jakobi4971]

Finally! Anti-Eastern Polemics!

[@dustinneely]

Read St. Gregory Palamas' "Apodictic Treatises On The Procession of the Holy Spirit". That is all. ☦️

[@chemnitzfan654]

First! I'll see myself out.

[@MontoyaBrandy]

Could you do a video on the character that was Luther? On his personality and some of the more controversial things he did. I know it’s a lot to ask but I’m starting a Lutheran church and so many people say such horrible things about him. Anyway would love to hear your thoughts on him and the things that he did. Thank you! 🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@koppite9600]

Only Christ starts a Church.

[@loungefly3452]

I think you'll find he's indefensible, you have to take him as he is - brilliant, courageous, bigoted, violent, learned, devout, arrogant etc. His flaws are there for all to see because he was such a public figure and had no where to hide.

[@koppite9600]

@@loungefly3452 The Church also had nowhere to hide but yet Martin Luther found her guilty and left.

[@loungefly3452]

@@koppite9600 he was right to do so on many counts, certainly with the Papal system, I think he eventually became like the Pope's he came to despise.

[@koppite9600]

@@loungefly3452 it's never right to leave the church. Jesus assured us it will withstand the test of times

[@rosslewchuk9286]

It is well spoken! Amen!🙏📖

[@Shevock]

Great info. Thanks for your work!

[@jfitz6517]

This was great, thank you!

[@palermotrapani9067]

Nice presentation Professor Cooper. You note, correctly, the Original Nicene Creed has nothing regarding the Holy Spirit other than saying "I believe in the Holy Spirit". Nothing more nothing less. The Council of Constantinople added to the Nicene Creed in 381. It was when it was called a purely regional Council largely attended from Bishops from regions around Constantinople. At the Council of Ephesus, the Creed was stated in its Nicene form only that was proclaimed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It wasn't until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan form of the Creed was proclaimed. But before Saint Augustine and Saint Ambrose, Saint Hillary of Poitiers in his work on the Trinity in circa 355 AD also clearly teaches the filioque. In addition to Saint Augustine, Pope Saint Leo the Great in his Letter 15 to the Bishop Turribius of Asturia clearly teaches the filioque, that was in 447 which is before the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version was affirmed at Chalcedon in 451 AD. That same Pope Saint Leo the Great in his Tome provided the dogmatic Christological formula at Chalcedon. It is therefore a Roman theological formula and nobody at Chalcedon called Pope Leo the Great unorthodox. Anyway very refreshing to see a Lutheran defend the Filioque

[@Piranesi-gc8gn]

Eastern orthodox think augustine is a saint. There are no grades. Seraphim Rose and kallistos ware used 'blessed' when talking about st. Augustine but they are not definitive voices of the church where as the canonisation is definitive.

[@johnnyd2383]

People in Orthodoxy are not held infallible and that includes Saints as well. We recognize errors in the theology of St. Augustine and his good works. We take the goodies he did and we toss his errors.

[@roddumlauf9241]

Whether the is Filioque is Biblical or not is up for debate. When I recite the Nicene Creed in Church in my Anglican parish, I am mute when it comes the filioque clause. Revelation to John seems to support the Filioque...but that is debatable

[@account2871]

Catholics in the chat coming to steal this video (including me lmao)

[@theregent3397]

And rightfully so, this is our theology

[@account2871]

@@theregent3397 When the Lutherans come back they can be the scriptural samurai we so desperately need

[@americanslav9694]

@@account2871 As soon as y’all canonize Martin Luther 😉

[@theregent3397]

@@americanslav9694 no

[@michaelwoods4495]

I'm certainly interested in this. Theologians, I suppose, have to address it. It's enough for me, though, to recognize that the Spirit operates, from whomever He proceedeth. In any case, the Church has always defined the Trinity as a mystery, which I take to mean that we won't understand it--though as we see from Dr. Cooper here, that hasn't stopped people from trying!

[@georgeluke6382]

44:24 - thanks!

[@kjhg323]

The texts about the Son sending the Spirit are a bit debatable. According to Augustine (and Aquinas), both the Son and Spirit are sent by all three divine persons equally (e.g., Mary is pregnant by the Spirit, which is of course an operation of all three persons inseparably). But that doesn't mean the Son proceeds from the Spirit eternally, even though he is sent by the Spirit. So we can't conclude from these texts that the Spirit proceeds from the Son eternally, even though he is sent by the Son However, the texts about the Spirit being the Spirit of the Son/Christ are extremely clear. Even though the Spirit sends the Son, the Son is never referred to as the Son of the Spirit. So if the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son (not just that the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son), this proves the filioque.

[@EnergeticProcession]

This assumes "of" necessarily entails "from."

[@evren.nikolaos]

@@EnergeticProcessionWhich runs afoul of the Cappadocians’ anti-Eunomian writings. Really bad place to go if you’re trying to defend the Filioque

[@raykidder906]

You typed, "the Son is never referred to as the Son of the Spirit." How can this statement of your be true if Mary became pregnant with Jesus through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit as per Luke 1:35?

[@EnergeticProcession]

@@raykidder906 Simple. May mean, is not identical to, necessarily means. Words can have different meanings in different contexts.

[@awake3083]

Doesn't the Book of Concord contain the original Nicean Creed which doesn't have the filioque?

[@evaneparat]

My Diglotta has "Et in spiritum sanctum . . . qui ex patre filioque procedit" and "Der vom Vater und dem Sohn ausgehet." So no, it doesn't seem so, unfortunately. It does, however, contain the combination of lines in the so-called Athanasian Creed which condemns Orthodox Christians to hell: "Whoever will be saved, shall above all else, hold the catholic faith. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this. . . . The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. . . . This is the catholic faith which, except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

[@awake3083]

@@evaneparat Very..interesting.

[@justinhilton]

@@evaneparat Wow, I never clocked that before - thank you for pointing it out. And though I confess the filioque it makes me ambivalent about reciting the Athanasian on Trinity Sundays. Still, though the bare text would definitely seem to exclude Orthodox from salvation, it’s obvious that the creed’s inclusion in the Book of Concord was definitely not with that end in mind. It was a huge part of early Lutheran polemics that Eastern Christians are in the Body of Christ, and it’s taken for granted that Easterners are brothers in Christ throughout the BoC: “For it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ is scattered throughout the whole world; and to-day there are many churches in the East which do not seek ordination or confirmation from the Roman bishop…” “And yet it is manifest that the holy Church has been without the Pope for at least more than five hundred years, and that even to the present day the churches of the Greeks and of many other languages neither have been nor are yet under the Pope.” On top of that the Athanasian Creed seems to have been composed around 500, long before the Schism and before there had even been much official pushback from the East (the 600s?). So technically yes and like I said I feel uncomfortable with it but definitely orders of magnitude different from EO’s specifically-targeted anathemas in the Synodikon and Synod of Jerusalem.

[@evaneparat]

​@@justinhilton I believe in the late mediaeval liturgical custom of northern Europe, it was used in the Office of Prime (first hour) every Sunday and saw more frequent use through Epiphanytide and Whitsuntide, not just relegated to Trinity Sunday---though I am not sure how far back this practice goes. Being a former Lutheran who is now at home in the Orthodox Church, I certainly did not say this to "own the Orthodox" or spread malice towards my own communion. It's something I noticed while I was still in the LCMS which also made me quite uncomfortable. I believe there are a number of things Lutheranism inherited from the Roman Church after splitting off without realizing that there was an alternative. Some of these things were implemented in the Latin tradition with explicit opposition towards the Orthodox and were haply carried on by Germans who departed that tradition without realizing the implications, and I would not be shocked if the Filioque and Athanasian Creed were among them. Like any good student of logic, I try to be consistent (whether I do the best job at that is another story), and I wish the same for those I exchange with. But here I am torn, for I would like for Lutherans to be consistent with their Confessions and Symbols, but I also believe consistency with certain premises will be quite damaging to their souls. Perhaps I am just using a lot of words to say nothing at all. Forgive me if that is the case.

[@paulnash6944]

How exactly does that work against the filioque? Just because the filioque wasn’t mentioned until it was updated doesn’t mean people didn’t believe in it. Leo I, who received the pontificate in 440, is on record for saying that the Holy Spirit is of the Son in the same way the Son is of the Father.

[@michaelg4919]

I am Protestant but disagree with the Filioque. At best it is incomplete, because it's only half of the truth. In addition to Jesus sending the spirit to us as a helper, he himself was conceived through the holy spirit. Thus he did not only send the spirit, but also came from the Holy Spirit. It's vice versa!

[@sakarael_rex]

That almost sounds Arian. The way you worded it makes it seems as if God created all of Christ through the Holy Spirit which, yes, he did concerning his human nature, but Christ's divine nature existed since the beginning of time and space. So that argument falls short.

[@michaelg4919]

@@sakarael_rex You can say the same thing about the Holy Spirit. It has always been there from the beginning since the Holy Spirit is God. What Jesus did, is that he sent the Spirit to us so we, as believers, receive it (starting at pentecost). Does this make my position more clear or do you disagree?

[@michaelg4919]

@Phlebas human nature. The process of Jesus sending the Holy Spirit also only applies to him sending the Spirit to us (on earth). The Holy Spirit is divine and has always been there.

[@Nonz.M]

Great historical explanation.

[@vdma20]

Couldn‘t your argument that the economic trinity is an outgrowth of the hypostatic relations be used to defend eternal functional subordination?

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". . : ) :) .

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 . .

[@g_br]

Thank you, sir!

[@Athabrose]

Orthobros and Dyerites activate. 😂 Thanks Dr. Cooper very good presentation.

[@EnergeticProcession]

I was around LONG before Dyer.

[@Athabrose]

@@EnergeticProcession I don’t care.

[@EnergeticProcession]

@@Athabrose Feeling loved.

[@deadalivemaniac]

@@EnergeticProcession was hoping people like you would respond, glad to see you, Perry.

[@EnergeticProcession]

@@deadalivemaniac I don't think Dr. Cooper is a bad faith actor. I just think that the issue is far more complicated and what he offers really doesn't touch the Orthodox position or arguments. Its just a rehash of Pieper and other Lutheran presentations. Thats fine in terms of telling us how Lutherans think of it, but these arguments are the same ones Rome gives, which have already been addressed. Until one engages those responses its just a merry go round.

[@mormonguru5984]

skip to minute marker 2:01 to hear his definition

[@Michael29040]

Is it possible that having trouble with the audio of the original video is a sign from God that He does not approve of your position on the Filioque? Asking in a respectful way and something to consider.

[@bethanyann1060]

You could just as easily make the argument that the devil didn’t want him to make the video.

[@Michael29040]

@@bethanyann1060 The devil has very little if any power at all. Really only a power to influence people. While we humans have free will, God controls the Universe and space and time and all that.

[@bethanyann1060]

@@Michael29040God certainly has all the power. Everything the devil does is only granted to him by God. I suggest you take a listen to what exorcists have to say on this matter for more information.

[@davidw.5185]

Thank you for the video. Regardless of where one falls on the Biblical and or theological veracity, we in the Western traditions have to come to realization that autocratically changing the Creed was an error. Many of our traditions spend much time and energy crying "churchmanship". Folks moan and bewail "process crimes" in regard to church constitutions and bylaws. Yet, there remains in the various liturgies, each Mass, the Filioque. Isn't the West, at least in the wrong, in this regard? Ty

[@barelyprotestant5365]

I agree with the West on the theology, but I heavily disagree on the allowance of adding to/taking away from the Creeds without any sort of consensus of the Church.

[@koppite9600]

Depends on who has The Keys if you ask me. The Keys are with The Pope.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@koppite9600 actually, not even Rome claims that the Bishop of Rome alone has the Keys. According to the first Canon of the 4th Lateran Council, Jesus gave ALL of the Apostles the Keys.

[@koppite9600]

@@barelyprotestant5365 that's not true. You must be mistaking binding and losing with Keys.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@koppite9600 nope. Look it up. It explicitly is talking about the Keys.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@koppite9600 "And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors."

[@GroundZero_US]

If we accept your axiom that the economy of God reflects The Ontology, wouldn’t that imply accepting the eternal subjugation of the Son as an Ontological reality, given that the Son was economically subordinate to achieve salvation?

[@DrMMlad]

Wow... The Visigoth invention (barbarians without theological sophistication who didn't really understand what it means to add filioque to the Nicene Creed - which is observed by the Church, then and now), 'recognized' at the unrecognized Council of Toledo, later on adopted by the Roman Catholic Church (for political reasons), is being interpreted by no less than - a protestant theologian. Yeah, definitely go with this.

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

Exciting!

[@peterxtrahan]

The processions are not about sending, they are about the eternal, ontological relations. The processions were before any form of sending. Before there was anyone (i.e. humanity) to send to, the processions were already a reality. Just as the Son is eternally Begotten, the Procession is eternal. The begetting is a form of procession. You are obviously equating sending with proceeding. Procession is eternal, sending is not. By definition "to send" implies a prior "not yet sent."

[@DrBillHaberman]

Are we not just taking the anthropomorphism of the unknowable and taking it beyond its scope? God is not father in every sense of the earthly sense of father, but it is strictly in general a way to distinguish between the son and the spirit so that we know that there are three persons who contain all the attributes of divinity. I believe it was Saint Anselm who had the dictum Which came from Augustine “I believe that I may understand“.

[@brandonclark908]

I love the PowerPoint!

[@Brett.Crealy-kh1sk]

I cannot help but imagine that The Godhead is looking down on all these discussions & are saying.. they'll never get it! 🤣 It must be hysterical to watch, & then rather boring after so many years! Needless to say, everyone whose ever had an opinion on this subject, once we've stood before the Throne of God, we'll finally realise that we weren't even in the ballpark! There will be no words...

[@donhaddix3770]

trinity , union of 3 persons composing the godhead. each equally God with 3 distinct roles.

[@MaryLewis-jt5jx]

Three in one period

[@r.lizarraga693]

The Western view on the Trinity is such a mess. It starts off with the assumption that there can only be one type of relationship in the Godhead (probably from erroneous views on Divine Simplicity). This is why they view begetting and procession as the same act and not a sufficient distinction. There is only one kind of relationship permitted by them, that of the cause and the caused. The notion of the cause and the caused can only lead to two distinct persons (i.e. Father and Son). Thus they must introduce the notion of 'that which is caused by the caused' (i.e. Son and Holy Spirit). This leads to the issue that the original cause is not the cause of the second caused (i.e. the Father is not the Cause of the Holy Spirit). This idea is certainly repugnant to the Christian belief that the Father is the origin of all (both Uncreated and created), therefore the second caused must also be caused by the original cause and not just the first caused (i.e. the Father must also be the Cause of the Spirit). But the relationship between the Father and Son must be the same as the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit (according to the Western view), otherwise you have two kinds of relationships. If there's two kinds of causal relationships (that of begetting and spirating), then there is no issue with the Orthodox notion that the Father causes the Son and the Holy Spirit in distinct ways. This would render the filioquist contention on this particular point moot. (There's other issues, I know). But if there is only one type of Divine relationship in the Holy Trinity, then Fatherhood is that which causes two divine persons and Sonship is that which causes only one divine person. Therefore, it is only the quantity of Divine causations which distinguishes the Persons of the Trinity, and not the uniqueness of the Divine causations (i.e. begetting and spirating). This also means that the Father causes the Son in the same manner that the Son causes the Holy Spirit (and that the Father causes the Holy Spirit as well). These are certainly strange ideas. It seems that it is unavoidable that there be at least two types of divine causation, whether it is the Father alone who performs these acts (Orthodox view) or with the Son (Western view).

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

I agree. Stating that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father and the son” is stating that The Son created Holyness, Which is false. The Creator is the King of The Kingdom Of Heaven, The Creator of all things visible and invisible, yes The Son Of Man is also key, but The Holy Spirit certainly does not proceed from him also. Catholics are addicted to adding things, they will ramble about how “we want tradition” and yet, they add things and update things constantly. the sacred heart is also a good example of this.

[@TisDoulos]

Lost the audio... Can I take it as a sign of that audio being full of truth, non man made stuff

[@harrygarris6921]

There’s some sense to the theological argument for the filioque, but adding it to the creed was unnecessary, poorly explained, and the result was causing discord and fracturing trust and unity. I do not think it was worth it to try to strong arm an alteration of a supposedly universal, unchanging creed in on a theological technicality.

[@bradleytarr2482]

Now do a video about Caesaro-Papism!

[@Brett.Crealy-kh1sk]

Whenever people speak of the begotten Son, I'm left wondering, what do you do with the Eternal Word? The Eternal Word existed before the 'begotten Son', He is not the 'begotten' Word! His sonship is after His incarnation, not before! I see nowhere in scripture The Eternal Word being the Eternal begotten Word! So what's the issue? The problem is finite beings seeking to pigeon hole The Eternal! God gave Adam the privilege of naming creation, not dissecting The Godhead! The real issue is that we cannot comprehend The Eternal Word with our finite minds, & to consider that we have done so adequately.. displays our utter arrogance!

[@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool]

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19