The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Nicene Creed

John,

I'm no expert on Classical Greek but I am familiar somewhat with this age-old division between the East and West. To make it clear, the issue is in the nature of the Holy Spirit as determined in the phrase, "proceeded from the Father and the Son". The Eastern Orthodox claim that if the word "proceeded" means "to come out of", then it denies the deity of the Holy Spirit. If, however, the meaning is as Rome contends comes from the Greek word proeimi; from prowv, which is "be self-existent", then there is no heresy in the statement. There are several usages of this word in the "Hermetic Writings" to substantiate this.

To me, it's all political wrangling and unresolved bitterness that has gone on for centuries. If the deity of the Holy Spirit isn't compromised when He is said to have "proceeded from the Father", then since the Son is also God, then what difference does it make if He also proceeded from the Son also? If the meaning of the alleged added word has been made clear and the deity of the Holy Spirit is confessed, then it would bring credence to my and many other's contention that there are sinful motives behind this whole matter. Given the two parties involved, that would also add some weight.

We as Protestants hold that the Son was begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and Son and thus the three persons are the one true God. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.

The Orthodox and Roman Catholics can fight over this all they want, as far as I'm concerned. They both are fraught with myriad heretical teachings which will damn them no less than one denying the person and deity of the Holy Spirit.