ijsthsept3baker libre

The Eternal Spirit of the Son: Barth,Florovsky and Torrance on the Filioqueijst_523 382..403

MATTHEW BAKER*

Abstract: This article offers an Orthodox response to Barths defense ofthe filioque. Florovskys theology exemplifies how Orthodoxy addresses theconcerns underlying Barths filioque without resort to the filioque. Entailed inthe elaboration of Florovskys Christocentric pneumatology is a critique of othercurrents in modern Orthodox theology (Florensky, Lossky). Common emphasesare noted between Florovsky and T.F. Torrance regarding the consubstantialityand propriety of the Spirit to the Son and the significance of this doctrine forecclesial life, suggesting a basis for further ecumenical reintegration.

Twentieth-century Western theology was marked by a rediscovery of the Trinity, asa mystery of faith present in every dimension of church life.1 This rediscovery hasserved to place EastWest disagreements regarding pneumatology into renewedattention. Some recent Roman Catholic theologians, such as Congar and de Halleux,favor the suppression of the filioque interpolation.2 Others of Protestant background for example, Colin Gunton, Thomas Smail and George Hendry3 regard thedoctrine itself as a misstep, an inadequate solution to a genuine problem.4

* 107 Norman Ave, Cranston, Rhode Island 02910, USA.

1 An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the Karl Barth Society ofNorth America session at the American Academy of Religion in Montreal (2009). Manythanks to Dr George Hunsinger.

2 Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, III (NewYork: Seabury Press, 1983), pp. 2046;Andr de Halleux, Towards an Ecumenical Agreement on the Procession of the HolySpirit, in Lukas Vischer, ed., Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflectionson the Filioque Controversy (London: SPCK, 1981), pp. 824; also, The Filioque: AChurch-Dividing Issue?, An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 48 (2004),p. 122.

3 Cf. Christopher Seitz, ed., Nicene Christianity: the Future for a New Ecumenism (GrandRapids: Brazos, 2001), pp. 46, 164, 184; George Hendry, The Holy Spirit in ChristianTheology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 4552.

4 Vischer, Spirit of God, p. 113: Alasdair Heron, summarizing Hendry.

International Journal of Systematic Theology Volume 12 Number 4 October 2010doi:10.1111/j.1468-2400.2010.00523.x

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

It is some irony that Karl Barth, a theologian of singular importance in thistrinitarian renewal, would allow no such reconsideration. Devoting 15 pages to thequestion in Church Dogmatics I/1, Barth states that no less than the whole thrust ofour attempted understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and of the HolyTrinity hangs upon the filioque.5 Arguably the most compelling defense of thefilioque produced in recent centuries, Barths arguments deserve more seriousengagement from Orthodox theologians than yet received.

This essay offers a critique of Barths defense from the perspective of EasternOrthodox theology. Viewing Barths filioque as a problematic attempt to secure anaccount of the Spirits eternal identity as the Spirit of the Son, the second and thirdsections consider the treatment of patristic teaching regarding the Spirits proprietyto the Son and the ecclesial significance of this doctrine in the work of GeorgesFlorovsky and T.F. Torrance as a sound basis for theological reintegration.

Barths filioqueAs Dietrich Ritschl observes, the basic theological-epistemological thesis in KarlBarths dogmatics is the ultimate abolition of the distinction between the immanentand economic Trinity.6 This presupposition is the root of Barths trinitarianism: asGod reveals himself as Trinity, so he is eternally in himself. It also undergirds Barthsinsistence on the filioque:

God in his revelation cannot be bracketed by an only, as though somewherebehind His revelation there stood another reality of God . . . In connexion withthe specific doctrine of the Holy Spirit this means that He is the Spirit of both theFather and the Son not just in His work ad extra and upon us, but that to alleternity no limit or reservation is possible here . . . The Eastern doctrine doesnot contest the fact that this is so in revelation. But it does not read off fromrevelation its statements about the being of God antecedently in Himself.7

Thus, the filioque follows directly upon the identity principle.This principle is reflected also in Barths use of the Augustinian notion of the

vinculum amoris: only if the Holy Spirit is the relation of love between Father and

5 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1: The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1975) (hereafter CD I/1), p. 479.

6 Dietrich Ritschl, Historical Development and the Implications of the FilioqueControversy, in Vischer, Spirit of God, p. 56. Ritschls characterization is accepted herein a limited sense; it is not intended to attribute to Barth the full-blown Arianizing andHegelianizing claim that God constitutes his own being by way of the economy. Asindicated precisely by the phrase antecedently in Himself, although epistemologicallyaccessible only by way of the economy, Barths filioque hinges upon the reality of anontologically prior immanent trinitarian taxis, whose economic form is manifested in arelation of irreversible, one-way identity with its immanent prototype.

7 Barth, CD I/1, pp. 47980.

The Eternal Spirit of the Son 383


Son can he be the donum of divine love to creatures. But, Barth avers, This wholeinsight and outlook is lost when the immanent Filioque is denied:

If the Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son only in revelation and for faith, if He is onlythe Spirit of the Father in eternity . . . , then the fellowship of the Spirit betweenGod and man is without objective ground or content . . . a purely temporal truth,with no eternal basis . . . Does this not mean an emptying of revelation?8

Most crucially, then, the filioque ensures mans filial adoption an objective, eternalground in God.

Barths concern with the objective reflects two other related principles at workin his defense of the filioque: his Christocentrism and his rejection of independentnatural theology. Barth insists that knowledge of God is mediated only in andthrough Jesus Christ. Between the human spirit and the Spirit of God, an infinitedifference is observed.9 The Holy Spirits work is distinct, but closely bound to thatof Christ: If revelation is given objectively in Christ, the Spirit is the agent of itsreception in men, who would otherwise be unable to apprehend Christ as Word. Thisis tied to Barths doctrine of election developed in CD II/2. As Barth states alreadyin CD I/2:

It is grounded from all eternity in God that no man cometh to the Father exceptthrough the Son, because the Spirit by whom the Father draws His children toHimself is also from all eternity the Spirit of the Son, because by His Spirit theFather does not call anyone except to His Son.10

As Spirit of the Son, the Spirit communicates no other content than the Fathers Sonand Word a truth Barth believes must necessitate the filioque.

Thus, Barth rejects the patristic formula of di! ! !" or per filium asinadequate, if yoked to the doctrine of the Spirits origination from the Father alone(# m$nou ! pi & ). Barth admits honestly that di! ! !" does notimply derivation from the Son: as he observes with reference to Athanasius AdSerapion ( I:20), for the Greek Fathers, the procession di! ! !" is not anpi # ' , but an pi# ' pi & ! l$gou, the Father alone being the# ' or principle in the strict sense of the word.11 However, Barth rejects this asinadequate, because it does not lead to the thought of the full consubstantialfellowship between Father and Son as the essence of the Spirit, the prototype ofmans adoptive filiation. Unless di! ! !" entails a relatio originis, the Spirit

8 Barth, CD I/1, p. 481.9 Barth, CD I/1, pp. 454, 462. In this regard, Barths filioque is a safeguard against German

nationalist introduction of Volk spirit into the church a connection brought out moreclearly in Dietrich Bonhoeffer, London, 19331935 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007),p. 48.

10 Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2: The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1956), p. 250.

11 Barth, CD I/1, p. 482.


384 Matthew Baker

loses His mediating position between the Father and the Son and the Father and theSon lose their mutual connexion in the Spirit. Further, even the unity of Godthe Father is called into question if implicitly He is not already the origin of the Spiritas the Father of the Son.12

Finally, Barth speculates about the results of the Easts rejection of the filioque,and asks whether its so-called monopatrism might be responsible for an obscuringof the Sons mediation, resulting in a naturalistic mysticism in which man mightenjoy communion with God in the Spirit apart from Christ.13 As evidence, Barthpoints to the Russian theologians and religious philosophers . . . obliterating thefrontiers of philosophy and theology, of reason and revelation, of spirit and nature, ofpistis and sophia.14 Barth does not name these Russians although the mentionof sophia and the period in which Barths remarks were written (1932) lead one tosuspect that Barth may be speaking of the sophiology of Soloviev, Florensky andBulgakov.15

A critique of Barths positionThere are several aspects of Barths filioque which the Orthodox theologian canappreciate.16 Barth is concerned to give dogmatic expression to the biblicalteaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19; cf. Acts 16:17,Rom. 8:9), the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6), the Spirit of " ' (Rom. 8:14).Rightly does Barth insist that if this is a merely temporal truth, without foundationin Gods eternal life, the result can only be an emptying of revelation even adangerous spiritualism in which the Sons place is exceeded in favor of some othersupposed revelation of the Spirit. With Barth, Orthodoxy agrees that the Spirittestifies to no other word, illumines no other image, than that of Jesus Christ,the only-begotten Son.

Whether this necessitates an identity between being and act is another matter.There are significant problems with this identity principle. Similar difficulties ledOrigen to the doctrine of eternal creation, preparing the conundrum that lay behindthe Arian controversy. To this problematic, Athanasius responded with a distinction

12 Barth, CD I/1, p. 482.13 Cf. Karl Barth, Gttingen Dogmatics I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 12930.14 Barth, CD I/1, p. 481.15 Barth was familiar with Bulgakovs thought, as he cites in CD I/1 (p. 479) an anthology

which included a selection of Bulgakovs work, Svet Nevechernii: Nicolai Buboffand Hans Ehrenburg, eds., stliches Christentum Dokumente II (Mnchen, 1925),pp. 195245.

16 In view of Orthodox concerns, it should be noted that Barth insists that the Spiritsprocession is not from the one common essence of God (CD I/1, p. 474), denies a graspof the difference between begetting and procession (CD I/1, p. 475), is critical ofAugustines psychological analogies (CD I/1, p. 476), rejects double procession (CDI/1, pp. 4867) and resists the reduction of the Spirit to mere relation (CD I/1, p. 487).



between divine # ' and q(lhsi or boupsilonacutelhsi: while the Son is generatedaccording to essence (& fupsilonacutesin), creation is a work of providential will(boul+sew , ).17 The matter is not exactly parallel; yet the sending of theSpirit is, like creation, an act of the divine will. Without some formal distinctionbetween being and act, how does Barth avoid introducing the category of time intoGod, making revelation an essential and therefore necessary divine attribute?

To refuse identity is not to question the indivisible unity of being and act, noris it to drive a dualistic wedge between eternity and time. Here Barth fails to dojustice to the Eastern tradition when he maintains that it entails a reduction ofthe Sons mediation to the temporal sphere alone. While this may have been thePhotian shorthand, it is not the theology which best represents the fullness ofOrthodoxy. In fact, the most in-depth Orthodox conciliar response to the filioqueproblem, the Tomos of Faith Against John Bekkos composed by Patriarch Gregoryof Cyprus and issued by the Council of Blachernae in 1285 11 years after LyonsII dogmatized for the West the Spirits procession ex patre filioque tanquam ab unoprincipio offers a teaching on the Spirits relation to the Son in quite differentterms.18

According to Blachernae, the temporal propriety of the Spirit to the Son isgrounded in an eternal manifestation, inherent in Gods providential will. Buildingon the same terminology Barth cites from Athanasius Ad Serapion, the Tomosspeaks of the Spirit as energetically manifested (# ' ), shining forth(pi# ' ) and issuing (pi ' ) through (di!) or from (# ) the Son for alleternity. This relationship, while rendering an Orthodox filioque, in no waycompromises the Spirits origination from the Father alone, for which the SecondEcumenical Council had reserved the term pi # ' : while the Spirit hasexistence ( pi - , ) immediately from the Father, he exists (pi " ' )through and from the Son.19

Similarly, # m$nou ! pi & does not exclude association of the Spiritwith the love between the Father and the Son, as Barth maintains. Ironically, it isGregory Palamas, whose essence / energy distinction seems to conflict sharply withBarths identity principle, who speaks of the Spirit as the pre-eternal joy of theFather and the Son and writes:

The Spirit of the Word is like an , of the Father for the mysteriouslybegotten Word, and it is the , that the beloved Word and Son of the Fatherhas for the one who begot him. That , comes from the Father and at thesame time is with the Son and naturally rests on the Son.20

17 Cf. Athanasius, Contra Arianos, III:30.18 For translation of the Tomos and commentary, see Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in

Byzantium: the Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus(12831289) (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1996).

19 Tomus, PG 142, in Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, pp. 1234.20 Gregory Palamas, Cap. 36, PG 150, 1144AD1145A.


386 Matthew Baker

Like Blachernae, Palamas speaks of an eternal operation without, however,reducing the Spirit to an energy common to the persons.21

Regarding Barths assertion that # m$nou ! pi & undermines theFathers unity, implying that he is not the origin of the Spirit as the Father ofthe Son,22 it must be emphasized that this formula is in no way intended to suggestthat the Spirits procession (pi # ' ) is somehow foreign to the Sons begetting.Again, the Orthodox teaching is well stated by Palamas: The Spirit has his existencefrom the Father of the Son, because he who causes the Spirit to proceed is alsoFather . . . it is not from anywhere else, but only from him who also begets the Son.23Here the Spirits procession presupposes the paternal identity of its source and,hence, the Sons generation. Thus, the conjunction of di! ! !" and # m$nou! pi & does not at all lead the Spirit to lose his mediating position, nor is theFathers unity undermined. On the contrary, one must ask whether Barths filioquedoes not imply a pattern in which the Spirit as nexus amoris tends to compete withan understanding of the divine ousia as koinonia, entailing a dialectic betweenFather and Son which necessitates the Spirit to maintain essential unity.24

But what of Barths criticisms of Russian theology? If Barth is speaking ofFlorensky, his criticisms are in part correct. Consider this troubling statement:

As long as history continues, only moments and instants of illumination by theSpirit are possible . . . In order that this third age may come, we must first leavethe second age. To enter into the religion of the Spirit, the world must finallyleave the religion of the Son.25

Here is a pneumatology which, in the name of an extreme chiliasm, suffers aprofound divorce from Christology. Subject to the German idealist influencescommon in the Russian Silver Age, Florenskys triadology echoes that of Joachim ofFiore, for whom Christ was only the second-to-last word of God, the very last beingthe Spirit. Countered by leading Orthodox theologians, condemned by local synods,Russian sophiology has never found wide acceptance within Orthodoxy. Thus, whileBarths critique marks a welcome corrective to Florenskys example, it is mistakento regard Florenskys views as typical of Eastern trinitarianism.

21 As Reinhard Flogaus demonstrates, Palamas is here dependent on Maximus PlanudesGreek translation of Augustines De Trinitate. R. Flogaus, Palamas and BarlaamRevisited: A Reassessment of East and West in the Hesychast Controversy of FourteenthCentury Byzantium, St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 42 (1998), pp. 132.

22 Barth, CD I/1, p. 482.23 Panayiotis Christou, ed., Gregoriou tou Palama: ta panta ta erga, vol. I (Thessaloniki,

1962), p. 46, cited in Vischer, Spirit of God, p. 176.24 Paul M. Collins, Trinitarian Theology West and East: Karl Barth, the Cappadocian

Fathers, and John Zizioulas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 205.25 Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of Truth (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1997), pp. 823.



The Spirit of the Son: the witness of Florovsky

A vastly different approach may be gleaned from Georges Florovsky, a leadingopponent of sophiology and arguably the major Orthodox theologian of the twentiethcentury. Throughout his dogmatic and ecumenical works, Florovsky insisted on thepriority of Christology for all Christian thought. Florovskys theology reveals anintense emphasis upon the Spirit of the Son, in many ways addressing the concernsraised by Barth in his defense of the filioque.26

As George Williams observes, In Florovskys thought, the Eastern Orthodoxretention of the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan formulation of the doctrine ofthe Trinity, without the controversial Western supplement of the Filioque, does notseem to have functioned significantly.27 Florovsky insists the filioque was not thecause of the schism, and probably the problem could have been settled, in the timesof Photius at least.28 When placed within the wider context of his thought, however,the scant references to the filioque found in Florovskys published oeuvre suggest amore integral perspective.

Florovsky pointedly rejects the view, formulated by the Russian-Polishmedievalist and theologian Lev Karsavin (18821952) and espoused by VladimirLossky,29 that the theology of the filioque has led to a subordination of the Spiritwhich is the source of every profound distortion in Western ecclesiology and spirituallife. Criticizing the excessive constructivism of Karsavins attempt to derive theentire system of Roman Catholicism, directly and one-sidedly, from one particulardoctrine, the doctrine of the filioque . . . regarded as vicious heresy, Florovskyremarks of this method of radical intuitions:

What is relevant is the method itself and the implicit assumption of massiveopposition between East and West . . . We get a brilliant construction of

26 On Barth and Florovsky see: Andrew Blane, ed., Georges Florovsky: RussianIntellectual, Orthodox Churchman (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,1993), pp. 69, 75, 845, 107, 123, 139, 147, 167, 186, 1889, 193, 194, 299, 319;Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 215; Duncan Reid, Energies of the Spirit: TrinitarianModels in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996);Michael D. Peterson, Georges Florovsky and Karl Barth: The Theological Encounters,American Theological Library Association Proceedings 47 (1993), pp. 14165; Daniel P.Payne Barth and Florovsky on the Meaning of Church , Sobornost 26 (2004), pp.3963; G.O. Mazur, Florovskys Reading of Anhypostasia and Enhypostasia, inTwenty-Five Year Commemoration to the Life of Georges Florovsky (New York:Semenenko Foundation, 2005), pp. 26981.

27 George H. Williams, The Neo-Patristic Synthesis of George Florovsky, in Blane,Georges Florovsky, p. 293.

28 Georges Florovsky, Review of Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, Church History 26(1957), p. 181.

29 Vladimir Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine,in In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press,1974), p. 71.


388 Matthew Baker

systems, and yet do we really grasp the existential dimension of faith and life?In any case, because Karsavin persistently assumes that there is absolutecoherence and consistency in all systems, one always moves within thedimensions of systems [. . . In Lossky also, there] is the same basic assumptionthat East and West are in permanent opposition to each other, the same skill inpresenting the inner cohesion of ideas within each particular system, the sameconviction that Filioque is at the root of the whole trouble.30

Florovskys criticism is rooted in a forceful rejection of idealistic, logical-causal andbiologistic approaches to history.31 An opposition to determinism and historicalinevitability runs throughout Florovskys entire corpus: history is not the drama ofimmanent Reason projected by Hegel, but an indeterminate agon of acting persons.32Thus, it is mistaken to conceive the history of doctrine and spirituality in Christianschism as conforming to the kind of logically consistent patterns which may be foundwithin the systems of individual thinkers.

Yet Florovskys hesitancy before such radical anti-filioque polemic entails morethan simply commitments in the philosophy of history and ecumenical methodology.Also at stake is Florovskys ecclesiology. Ecclesiology, insists Florovsky, is achapter of Christology.33 However, the Pauline and patristic doctrine of the churchwas obscured in later theology, having to be recovered in modern times:

In post-Reformation theology, the Church has been considered more as a bodyof believers, coetus fidelium, than as the Corpus Christi. When this approach tothe mystery of the Church is practiced on a sufficiently deep level, it bringstheologians to the Pneumatological conception of the Church. It may be truethat . . . the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been somehow underdeveloped inChristian tradition . . . yet there is still a strong tendency to overemphasize thePneumatological aspect of the doctrine of the Church.34

30 Georges Florovsky, Some Contributors to 20th Century Ecumenical Thought, inEcumenism II: A Historical Approach (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), p. 211.

31 Georges Florovsky, Evolution und Epigenesis (Zur Problematik der Geschichte), DerRussische Gedanke 1 (1930), pp. 24052:

der grundstzliche und charakteristische Begriff der Geschichte ist ebenderjenige der Persnlichkeit . . . Die Persnlichkeit ist nicht blo ein Organismus. . . zwischen der Kausalitt durch die Notwendigkeit und Kausalitt durch dieFreiheit gibt es eine qualitative und wesentliche Inkommensurabilitt. Die Freiheitist ein Ri in den kausal-konsekutiven Reihen.

32 See Georges Florovsky, The Patterns of Historical Interpretation, Anglican TheologicalReview 50 (1968), pp. 14455; The Predicament of the Christian Historian, in GeorgesFlorovsky, Christianity and Culture (Belmont, MA: Nordland Press, 1974), pp. 3165;and the essays in Georges Florovsky, Philosophy: Philosophical Problems andMovements (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987).

33 Georges Florovsky, Le corps du Christ vivant, in Jean-Jacques vonAllmen, ed., La Sainteglise Universelle: Confrontation oecumnique (Paris: Delachaux et Niestl, 1948), p. 12.

34 Georges Florovsky, On the History of Ecclesiology, in Ecumenism II, p. 12.



As examples of this overemphasis, Florovsky cites the early work of Mhler, DieEinheit in der Kirche, and, in the Russian East, the sobornost ecclesiology developedby Khomiakov and other Slavophiles.

As Florovsky clarifies, there can be no opposing the two Pauline formulas, inChrist and in the Spirit. Rather, the question involves which of the two is givenprecedence, in that an unfortunately-chosen starting point may cause a very seriousdistortion of the total theological perspective. In truth, our unity in the Sprit isprecisely our incorporation into Christ, which is the ultimate reality of Christianexistence35 an adoptive incorporation, by way of an ordered consubstantialitywhich Florovsky indicates with reference to Athanasius Ad Serapion I:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of adoption in Christ Jesus, the power of Christ (2Cor. 12:9). By this Spirit we recognize and confess that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor.12:3).The operation of the Holy Spirit in the faithful is precisely theirincorporation in Christ, their baptism in the unity of the body (12:13) of Christ.As St. Athanasius well stated it: Watered by the Spirit, we drink of Christ.36

All this is obscured, however, in romantic ecclesiologies which presume to beginwith pneumatology: here the focus tends rather toward the phenomenon of theCommunity, over against the person of the Incarnate Lord continually active andacting in the Spirit in order to recapitulate all things in himself. Thus, the real perilof this pneumatological starting-point, Florovsky argues, is that the doctrine of theChurch is in danger of becoming a kind of Charismatic Sociology .37

Florovsky detects a similar, though apparently contrary, error in the Vatican Ipapal dogmas. In Florovskys enigmatic expression:

papism . . . shows an exaggeration of the notion of hieratical charism. Here wefind a kind of canonical Montanism. In any case, the Vatican Dogma is not onlya definition and a formula, but also a mystical acknowledgement . . . In thisinstance, canonical or historico-dogmatic refutation is therefore not as importantas the profound transfiguration of the very sense of the Church, the return to thefullness of the Christological vision.38

Although Florovsky does not develop this, there is an inherent similarity between hisdiagnoses of Charismatic Sociology and canonical Montanism . In the first, voxDei is conflated with vox populi the voice of the Spirit with the religious spirit of

35 Florovsky, On the History of Ecclesiology, pp. 1213.36 Florovsky, Le corps du Christ vivant, p. 19; my translation. Florovsky makes use of the

same Athanasian text in The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation, The Christian East13 (1932), pp. 4964.

37 Florovsky, On the History of Ecclesiology, pp. 13, 12. Congar expresses surprise thatan Eastern theologian would critique the West for being insufficiently Christocentric in itspneumatology. Yves Congar, The Word and the Spirit (New York: Continuum, 1986),p. 1.

38 Georges Florovsky, Rome, the Reformation, and Orthodoxy, in Ecumenism II, p. 57.


390 Matthew Baker

the community; in the second, there is an exaggerated, all-too-exclusive associationof the Spirit with the magisterium.

Charismatic Sociology and canonical Montanism are rooted in a commonfault. Both exhibit a failure to discern the Spirit as a transcendent, uncreated giftwhich, within the economy, belongs properly by nature only to one person: theIncarnate Son and Mediator. In reality, the Spirit is given to the church, that bodyconstituted in union with her ascended Lord as totus Christus, as a gift alwaysexceeding any complete grasp by the churchs members, whether clerical or lay.39 Inno sense can the Spirit proper to the Son be characterized as the simple and naturalpropriety of the hierarchy or of the People of God either individually or as anumerical unit. The gift of Christs Spirit is an eschatological presence, disallowingany identification with the religious self-consciousness of believers or the powers ofthe clergy. As with Barth, Florovsky underscores this distinction between Holy Spiritand human spirit with a stricture upon natural theology: God is revealed in the Word,and only Gods word is revelation. So-called natural theology is no theology.40Again, it is the objective christological reference that guards against false mysticism:The Christology of the Church does not lead us into the misty clouds of vainspeculations or dreamy mysticism. On the contrary, it secures the only proper andsolid ground for theological research.41

Significantly, Florovsky nowhere suggests that the distortions of CharismaticSociology and canonical Montanism are the result of the filioque. Florovskyeven hints that a proper pneumatology has been left underdeveloped and neveradequately formulated probably because of an over-intensive focus on the filioquecontroversy.42 If this focus has in the past led Western theology to under-appreciate

39 Variant liturgical developments notwithstanding, it is this dogmatic fact that is thereal concern behind the Eastern insistence on the epiclesis. As Lelouvier interpretsFlorovsky, Prsent en chacun des deux interlocutors, lEsprit du Christ, tmoin de Dieudevant lhomme et tmoin de lhomme de Dieu, est le grand acteur des sacrements.Yves-Nol Lelouvier, Perspectives russes sur lEglise. Un theologien russe: GeorgesFlorovsky (Paris: ditions du Centurion, 1968), p. 81. Yet, as the Spirit is the Spirit of theSon, le ministre suprme des sacraments est le Christ Sauveur lui-mme and lesministres agissent ainsi in persona Christi. Florovsky, Le corps du Christ vivant, pp.28, 38. Florovskys emphasis on the Spirits propriety to the Son and his critique ofcanonical Montanism cohere with his approval of Augustines views regarding theSpirits work in sacraments beyond the churchs canonical limits. Georges Florovsky,The Boundaries of the Church, in Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach (Vaduz:Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), especially p. 43; also Georges Florovsky, The Doctrine ofthe Church and the Ecumenical Problem, Ecumenical Review 2 (1950), pp. 15261.

40 Florovsky, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation, p. 52. As with Barth, Florovskysemphasis on the Spirits propriety to the Word is joined to a rejection of religiousnationalism, particularly of the Slavophile variety: see Georges Florovsky, Ways ofRussian Theology II (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987).

41 Georges Florovsky, The Church: Her Nature and Task, in Bible, Church, Tradition: AnEastern Orthodox View (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), p. 68.

42 Florovsky, On the History of Ecclesiology, p. 12.



the role of the Holy Spirit in the church, nonetheless it has also allowed someOrthodox theologians to fail to give adequate dogmatic account regarding the Spiritof the Son.

It is precisely this failure which Florovsky criticizes in Lossky, whose strictschematization between two economies, of the Son and of the Spirit strangelyechoing the sophiology of Florensky which Lossky opposed risks the implicationthat the gift of the Spirit communicates a fullness somehow greater than, and beyond,the Son. Criticizing the inadequacy of Losskys Christological presuppositions,Florovsky underscores the truth that

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son: He will not speak on his ownauthority . . . because he will receive of what is mine and declare it to you (John16:1314). In any case, the Economy of the Spirit should not be so construedas to limit and reduce the Economy of the Son. . . . The implication seems tobe that only in the Holy Spirit, and not in Christ is the human personality fullyand organically re-established . . . it is misleading to suggest that in the Church,through the sacraments, our nature enters into union with the Divine nature inthe hypostasis of the Son, the Head of the Mystical Body, and then to add assomething different that each person of the (human) nature must become likeChrist and that this is accomplished in the grace of the Holy Spirit. . . . Inpractice, this would imply that Christ is not dynamically present in the Church,an assumption which may lead to grave errors in the doctrine of thesacraments.43

Nor are the shortcomings of Losskys scheme limited only to sacramental theology.In a private letter of 1963, Florovsky draws from these considerations clearimplications for the whole spiritual life:

The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and is sent by Christ from the Father in orderto remind the disciples, those of Christ, or Christians, of Him. Pneumatic shouldnot be played against Christological . . . The Spirit, and His gifts, can beacquired only in the name of Christ . . . The Pentecost is the mystery of theCrucified Lord, Who rose again to send the Paraclete . . . Imitatio Christi is notjust a figure of speech, and it is not a Western phrase. St. Ignatius of Antioch[Rom, 6:3] regarded himself as a mimetes Christou, with special emphasis on thesharing of the Cross or the martyrs death.44

Because the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit-bearing saint is none other thanthe person mimetically conformed to the image of the incarnate Son. AlthoughFlorovsky does not mention Lossky here, the substance of his argument is continuouswith his criticisms of Losskys theology. It is a failure to account for the bond

43 Florovsky, On the History of Ecclesiology, pp. 1516.44 In Anastassy Brandon Gallaher, Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St.

Seraphim, Sobornost 27 (2005), pp. 5870. 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

392 Matthew Baker

between the Spirit and the Son which leads Lossky to the assertion that thespirituality of the imitation of Christ which is sometimes found in the West is foreignto Eastern spirituality, as well as to the claim again recalling Florensky that inthe age to come the Spirit, while not having His image in another Hypostasis, willmanifest Himself in deified persons: for the multitude of the saints will be Hisimage.45 Reacting to the filioque, Lossky has little to say regarding the Spiritsidentity as Spirit of the Son even on an economic plane.46 In contrast, Florovskysreading of the Fathers delivers a more balanced approach.

Florovsky draws attention to Cyril of Alexandrias treatment of the Spirit asproper ( . )47 to the Son, an expression indicating consubstantiality, and the truththat Christ and the Holy Spirit have a relationship which differs from that whichexists between the saints and the Holy Spirit.48 In contrast to Barth, who conflatesCyrils pi ' # ! pi & & ! !" with pi # ' ,49Florovsky notes that Cyril himself rejected this equation in his response toTheodoret, who had accused him of teaching that Son was a cause of the Spirit:To see St. Cyril approaching St. Augustines notion of the procession of Spiritand to equate St. Cyrils ' !" with St. Augustines filioque would violate thelogical progression of St. Cyrils thought, and this is directly corroborated by St.

45 Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: StVladimirs Seminary Press, 1998), pp. 215, 173. For more extensive comparison betweenFlorovsky and Lossky on this, see Jaroslav Skira, Christ, the Spirit and the Church inModern Orthodox Theology (PhD dissertation, University of St Michaels College,Toronto, 1998).

46 As Papanikolaou observes, in Losskys theology, The independence of the Holy Spirit,which Lossky refers to as the economy of the Holy Spirit, is a reaction to the filioque.Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-HumanCommunion (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), pp. 1067.

47 The following is typical of Cyril: The Spirit proceeds from the Father (pi & ! & pi # ' ' ) and is naturally the Sons own proper Spirit ( . !! " "! ! ), existing in him and issuing from him (# !# / te pi " '& # !# pi '"" ), In Joannis Evangelium 10, PG 74, 417C.

48 Georges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Vaduz:Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), p. 273.

49 Barth, CD I/1, p. 477; Cyril, Thesaurus, PG 75, 577. As the Vatican clarification on TheGreek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit acknowledges,Cyril never uses pi # ' for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (cf.Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for StCyril, the term pi # ' as distinct from the term proceed (pi ' ) can onlycharacterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: theFather, LOsservatore Romano, 20 September 1995, pp. 3 and 6. Zizioulas remarks: inthe Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between pi # ' andpi ' , the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirits derivation fromthe Father alone, whereas pi ' was used to denote the Holy Spirits dependenceon the Son owing to the common substance . . . distinction between pi # ' andpi ' was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, todenote both. John Zizioulas, One Single Source, www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm, accessed 3 June 2010.



Cyrils own testimony.50 Likewise, Maximus the Confessors irenic reading of theWest Roman filioque is completely within the compass of the ancient Easterntradition, not attributing causal origination, but rather procession through the Sonin order to signify affinity and inseparability of essence.51

Interpreting the use of the expression di! ! !" in Greek patristic theologyfrom the Cappadocians to John Damascene, Florovsky insists that this phrase doesnot apply only to the economy, but to the divine processions themselves:

One must not limit through the Son only to the fact of the Holy Spirits descentin time to creation . . . the Son originates directly from the Father, while theHoly Spirit comes from the Firstwith the mediation of through the One whocame from the Father directly. And this mediation " ! !" mesite0a preserves the uniqueness, the Only-Begottenness of the Sonship . . . the HolySpirit is the middle between the not-born and the born, and through the Son theHoly Spirit is united to or attaches to the Father, in the words of St. Basil.52

While distinction must be made, there is no separation between theology andeconomy:

The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. This means that the procession ispleasing to God and inscrutably presupposes the eternal birth of the Son. Andthe oikonomic order of revelation, crowned by the appearance of the Holy Spirit,reproduces, as it were, and reflects the ontological order of the Life of theTrinity, in which the Holy Spirit proceeds like a kind of shining which revealsthe hidden goodness of the Father and proclaims the Logos.53

Here Florovsky appears to take a slight step beyond Gregory of Cyprus. WhereasGregory had reserved the expression di! ! !" to the Spirits energeticmanifestation (, ' # ' ) in eternity and time, Florovskyapproximates the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor, forwhom by nature (fupsilonacutesei) the Holy Spirit in his being ( ' # ' ) substantially(!# ) takes his origin (pi # ' ) from the Father through the Sonwho is begotten ( ' " ! genhq(nto).54

50 Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, p. 273.51 Georges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century (Vaduz:

Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), p. 220.52 Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century, p. 264.53 Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century, p. 265.54 Maximus, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C; compare with Cyril,

Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A. Both Cyril and Maximus speak of the procession through theSon as ousianic, while Gregory of Cyprus apparently limits through the Son toenergetic manifestation. Yet Gregory also speaks of an existing ( pi " ' ) through theSon. Is this to underscore the inseparability of the Spirits essential existence and itsenergetic manifestation through or from the Son, while the Spirit originates or receivesexistence (pi - , ) from the Father alone? If so, Gregorys teaching is closer toCyril and Maximus than first appears.


394 Matthew Baker

Maintaining the doctrine of the Fathers sole causal monarchy, Florovskysreading of the Greek Fathers stands nevertheless in agreement with Barth that theSpirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son . . . to all eternity.55 This is infirm contradiction to Barths assertion that the Eastern doctrine does not contestthe fact that this is so in revelation, but does not read off from revelation itsstatements about the being of God antecedently in Himself.56 If, in the heat ofcontroversy with the Frankish proponents of the filioque, Photios employedthe formula # m$nou ! pi & in a manner which cuts brutally between theplane of the eternal processions and that of the temporal missions,57 followingthe tendency of Antiochenes like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrusto limit the title Spirit of the Son to history alone, Florovskys synthesis, incontrast, allows no such wedge to be driven between Deus in se and Deusrevelatus, as Barth maintains follows from the rejection of the filioque. Further,Florovskys summary of Greek patristic pneumatology does not confirm Barthsclaim that without the filioque, the Spirit loses His mediating position between theFather and the Son.58

Florovsky shares several concerns which underlie Barths filioque defense: theunity of theologia and oikonomia, the singularity of Christs mediation as the onerevelation of God, the Christocentric character of the Spirits operation, thefreedom of divine grace in relation to the church, mans adoptive entry intothe love between the Father and the Son, and the radical difference between theSpirit of God and the human spirit. Disagreement is here concentrated largely atone point: Barths insistence that this whole insight and outlook is lost whenthe immanent Filioque is denied59 and the sole monarchy of the Father affirmed.To this assertion, Florovskys theological example provides a disarmingcounter-argument.

Where does this leave the filioque? On this, there is some evidence thatFlorovsky favored the views of the nineteenth-century Russian theologian VassilyBolotov (18541900).60 Following a threefold distinction between dogmas,theologoumena and theological opinion, Bolotov concluded that the Filioque, asa private theological opinion, should not be regarded as an impedimentum dirimensto the restoration of communion. As Florovsky summarizes Bolotov, the Filioque,

55 Barth, CD I/1, p. 479.56 Barth, CD I/1, p. 480.57 Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary

Press, 1999), p. 286.58 Barth, CD I/1, p. 482.59 Barth, CD I/1, p. 481.60 V.V. Bolotov, Thesen ber das Filioque von einem russischen Theologe, Revue

internationale de thologie 6 (1898), pp. 681714; Thses sur le Filioque, Istina 17(1972), pp. 26189. On Bolotov, see Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part II,pp. 1489.



for which the authority of St. Augustine can be quoted, is a permissible theologicalopinion, provided it is not regarded as a credendum de fide.61

This viewpoint provided it were Florovskys own would place Florovskysquarely within a certain mainstream tradition of nineteenth-century Russiantheology, which had tended to regard the filioque as a quasi-canonical problem, dueto an unconciliar interpolation to the ecumenical creed. However, Florovskysstatements claim more for Bolotovs attempt, while likewise resisting any suggestionof doctrinal minimalism, such as Bolotovs proposal might appear to allow.Referring to Bolotovs remarkable Thesen ueber Filioque , Florovsky writes:Bolotov shows there how the two theologoumena, the Eastern and the Western,can be reconciled in a fair and comprehensive synthesis.62 Florovskys languagehere suggests his own agenda of neo-patristic synthesis simultaneously a programfor Orthodox theological renewal and an ecumenical program aimed at the realreintegration of the Christian tradition.63

Such an ecumenical synthesis, Florovsky insists, can never be achieved simplyby arithmetical operations, either by subtraction or by addition of all differences.64Nevertheless, in spite of Augustines obvious peculiarities vis--vis Greek patristics,the Latin doctor has a clear stature within Florovskys envisioned synthesis. AsFlorovsky insisted regarding Augustines views regarding sacraments beyond thechurchs canonical boundaries, the Orthodox theologian has every reason to take

61 Georges Florovsky, Russian Orthodox Ecumenism in the Nineteenth Century, inEcumenism II, p. 140. Florovsky is reported to have said at Amsterdam in 1948, quentreles deux Eglises, orthodoxe et catholique, il ny avait au fond quune question, celle duPape. Charles Boyer, Le Movement Oecumnique: les Faits le Dialogue (Rome:Gregorianum, 1976), p. 109. This is consistent with Florovskys own publishedcomments: The growth of Papal claims for a universal authority and jurisdictionultimately wrecked the unity of the Church, in Terms of Communion in the UndividedChurch, in Donald Baillie, ed., Intercommunion (New York: Harper, 1952), p. 48. In thisalso Florovsky follows Bolotov: What sundered the communion of the one catholicChurch? I answer without question: It was sundered by the Roman papacy, in Thesenber das Filioque, quoted in Sergei Bulgakov, The Comforter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2004), p. 144. The filioque thus appears primarily as a canonical-ecclesiological problem;yet Florovsky regards papal (and Protestant) ecclesiology as reflecting a defectivechristological vision.

62 Florovsky, Review of Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 181. In Bolotovsclassification, theological opinions stand in the realm of adiaphora, permissible butlacking the broad witness of theologoumena (which Bolotov grants to di! tou !" ).Florovsky equates theologoumena with theological opinion, yet notes with referenceto Bolotov, No theologoumenon can claim more than probability, and notheologoumenon should be accepted if it has been clearly disavowed by anauthoritative or dogmatic pronouncement of the Church. Georges Florovsky, Creationand Redemption (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976), p. 315.

63 Georges Florovsky, The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement,Theology Today 7 (1950), p. 78.

64 Florovsky, The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, p. 78.


396 Matthew Baker

into account the theology of St. Augustine in his doctrinal synthesis;65 Augustine isa Father of the Church Universal, and we must take his testimony into account, if weare to attempt a true ecumenical synthesis.66

That this judgement also included consideration of Augustines trinitariantheology is evidenced in yet another confrontation with Lossky, in a reviewof Losskys Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. As Florovsky observes,Lossky

confines himself strictly to the Eastern tradition and probably exaggerates thetension between the East and the West even in the Patristic period. A tensionthere obviously existed, as there were tensions inside the Eastern traditionitself, e.g., between Alexandria and Antioch. But the author seems to assume thatthe tension between the East and the West, e.g., between the Trinitarian theologyof the Cappadocians and that of Augustine, was of such a sharp and radicalcharacter as to exclude any kind of reconciliation and overarching synthesis.It would be more accurate to say that such a synthesis has never beenaccomplished or even has not been thoroughly attempted. Even if we admit, aswe certainly must, that the Trinitarian theology of Augustine was not wellknown in the East, up to the late Middle Ages, Augustines authority had neverbeen seriously questioned in Byzantium even in the times of Patriarch Photius.It is therefore unsafe to exclude his contribution from the Patristic heritage of theUndivided Church. One should be ecumenical rather than simply oriental inthe field of Patristic studies. One has to take into account the whole wealth of thePatristic tradition and wrestle impartially with its intrinsic variety and tensions.67

Florovsky detects no radical opposition between Augustinian and Cappadociantriadologies. Yet one might ask whether those Orthodox theologians who claim tofollow Florovskys neo-patristic lead have seriously considered Florovskys views inthis regard, or heeded his demand to be ecumenical rather than simply oriental in

65 Florovsky, The Boundaries of the Church, p. 41.66 Florovsky, The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical Problem, p. 156. Mascall

reports the following remark of Florovsky, made at Lincoln Theological College shortlybefore World War II: I would say that Augustine is really an Eastern Father. E. Mascall,Georges Florovsky (18931979), Sobornost 2 (1980), pp. 6970. On Florovskys use ofAugustine see Lelouvier, Perspectives russes sur lEglise; Christoph Knkel, TotusChristus: Die Theologie Georges V. Florovskys (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1991); Myroslaw Tartaryn, Augustine and Russian Orthodoxy (New York: InternationalScholars, 2000), pp. 97118; Will Cohen, Sacraments and the Visible Unity of theChurch, Ecclesiology 4 (2007), pp. 6887; Joseph Famere, Les limites de lglise:Lapport de Georges Florovsky au dialogue catholique-orthodoxe, Revue thologique deLouvain 34 (2003), pp. 13754; Tamara Grdzelidze, Using the Principle of Oikonomiain Ecumenical Discussions: Reflections on The Limits of the Church by GeorgesFlorovsky, Ecumenical Review 56 (2004), pp. 23446.

67 Georges Florovsky, Review of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, in TheJournal of Religion 38 (1958), p. 207.



patristics. On the whole, the answer to both questions appears, with few exceptions,68negative.

To conclude this consideration of Florovsky: with respect to the origination ofthe Spirit, a chasm stands between Barth and the Orthodoxy of Florovsky. At thesame time, a significant bridge is constructed, in the form of a shared confession ofthe Spirit as eternally the Spirit of the Son.

In light of the critical emphases common to Barth and Florovsky, theproblematic tendencies discerned in Florensky, the Slavophiles and Lossky69 serve toremind Orthodox theologians of the importance of this biblicalpatristic teaching,affirmed by Tarasius of Constantinople in the synodikon adopted by the SeventhEcumenical Council: I also believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Giver of Life,who proceeds [pi ' ] from the Father through the Son.70 Yet a testing of Barthscritique against Florovskys synthesis of Greek patristic pneumatology indicatesthat, contrary to Barths assertions, this confession of the eternal Spirit of the Son,with all it entails for the life of the church, in no way necessitates the filioquedefended by Barth.

The synthesis between Eastern and Western triadologies Florovsky believedpossible is a task Florovsky himself never attempted. That Florovskys bauche does,however, indicate a way forward, addressing the concerns of both sides, is suggestedby the profound consonance between Florovskys views and those of Barths leadingfirst-generation interpreter, T.F. Torrance.

Torrance: The Homoousion of the Spirit

According to Torrance, the crucial concern motivating the early Western filioque wasthe Athanasian doctrine of the consubstantiality and propriety of the Spirit to the

68 For example, Nicholaos Ludovikos, Ontology Celebrated: Remarks of an Orthodox onRadical Orthodoxy, in Adrian Pabst and Christoph Schneider, eds., Encounter betweenEastern Orthodoxy and Radical Orthodoxy (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), p. 145:

some of the main aspects of Augustinian Trinitarian theology are very close to thoseof the Cappadocian fathers . . . I therefore do not think that we can speak of anessentialism of Western Trinitarian theology against the personalism of the Easternone . . . If we consider at least the case of the Augustinian triadology, we may ratherspeak, I think, of two types of personalisms in East and West, depending on how eachof them understands the notion of consubstantiality (" ' ).

Also, John Panteleimon Manoussakis, Theophany and Indication: ReconcilingAugustinian and Palamite Aesthetics, Modern Theology 26 (2010), pp. 7689; GeorgeDemacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, eds., Orthodox Readings of Augustine(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2008).

69 On Barth and Lossky see: Alaar Laarts, Doctrines of the Trinity in Eastern and WesternTheologies: A Study with Special Reference to K. Barth and V. Lossky (New York: PeterLang, 1999).

70 Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Sixth to Eighth Century, p. 165. 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

398 Matthew Baker

Son. In response to the forms of Arianism encountered in the West, it was of utmostimportance to insist that the Spirit was truly the Spirit of the Son as of the Father, forunless the Father and the Son were held to be fully equal the doctrine of thehomoousion could hardly be maintained.71

Ironically, Torrance accuses later Western theology of a departure from thehomoousion of the Spirit which the filioque had been originally designed to uphold.This departure resulted in two seemingly opposed, but related epistemological errors.Torrance writes:

One of the major lessons we learn from Athanasius and his attack upon Ariansand semi-Arians alike is that unless we know the Holy Spirit through theobjectivity of the homousion of the Son in whom and by whom our minds aredirected away from ourselves to the one Fountain and Principle of the Godhead,then we inevitably become engrossed with ourselves, confusing the Holy Spiritwith our own spirits . . . The importance of this for the West can be seen if it issaid, with a little exaggeration, that there has been in it a persistent tendencyto substitute for the filioque an ecclesiaque, the error of Romanism, or ahomineque, the error of Neo-Protestantism. In other words, there has beena marked failure to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the spirit of the Church orthe spirit of religious man, that is, from the self-consciousness of the Church orthe self-consciousness of the believer.72

Torrances ecclesiaque and homineque bear striking resemblance to Florovskyscanonical Montanism and Charismatic Sociology. Both indicate distortionsresulting from a loss of a Christocentric vision of the Spirit in the church. As withcanonical Montanism , Torrance associates ecclesiaque especially with theVatican I papal dogmas, in which (he argues) the Spirit is regarded as an endowmentdispensed by the churchs hierarchy in the form of created grace.73 Similarly,although taking more individualistic form in Schleiermachers pietism, hominequecorresponds closely to Charismatic Sociology: in both, the human spirit isconfounded with the divine.

Canonical Montanism or Charismatic Sociology, ecclesiaque orhomineque for both diagnoses, the question reads thus: Does the church possessthe Spirit or is the church possessed by the Spirit? According to Torrance, the first,fatal answer is common to both sides of Western Christianity: In Romanism andProtestantism alike the Church has domesticated the grace and Spirit of God in itsown spiritual subjectivity instead of being the sphere of the divine freedom where the

71 Thomas Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),p. 229.

72 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, pp. 227, 231. Also, T.F. Torrance, The School ofFaith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church (London: Camelot Press, 1959),pp. xcixc.

73 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p. 182.



Lord the Giver of Life is at work as Creator Spirit.74 The result: modern religiousman is afflicted with a deep-seated mental disease, self-obsession and a failure todistinguish between objective realities and subjective conditions.75

Much like Florovsky, Torrances response is to reaffirm the patristic doctrine ofthe Spirits consubstantiality with and propriety to the Son. Here again, Ad Serapionis the touchstone, Christology the starting point in the ordo theologiae:

Athanasius says, It is natural that I should have spoken and written first aboutthe Son of God that from our knowledge of the Son we may be able to haveproper knowledge of the Spirit (Ad Ser. 3.1) . . . this is the only properprocedure because of the propriety of the Spirit to the Son, and because it isonly in and through the Son or Word that God has revealed himself. The Spiritdoes not utter himself but the Word and is known only as he enlightens usto understand the Word. The Son is the only logos, the only eidos of theGodhead (see C. Arianos 3.15, and Ad. Ser. 1.19) . . . Nevertheless it is only inthe Spirit that we may know the Son . . . It is from the Son that the Spiritshines forth (eklampei, Ad Ser. 1.18), and in the Spirit (en Pneumati) that Godis known.76

In Torrances view, it is this doctrine of the Spirits propriety to the Son77 and theinseparable relation of the Spirit to Christ in creation and redemption which must beconserved, whether the filioque . . . is formally accepted or not.78 So long as theAthanasian teaching of the homoousion of the Spirit is maintained, we can forgetabout the filioque clause: it was entirely wrong to introduce it into the EcumenicalCreed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.79

74 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, pp. 244, 245.75 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p. 231.76 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, pp. 21415. Torrances essay Spiritus Creator: A

Consideration of the Teaching of St Athanasius and St Basil, found in Theology inReconstruction, pp. 20928, seems to have grown out of direct dialogue with Florovsky:in March 1962, Torrance participated with Florovsky in a patristic study group organizedby the Faith and Order Commission, which had for its focus the pneumatology ofAthanasius and Basil.

77 Propriety to the Son is crucial: cf. T.F. Torrance, Theological Realism, in BrianHebblethwaite and Stewart Sutherland, eds., The Philosophical Frontiers of Theology:Essays Presented to D.M. MacKinnon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982),p. 192:

If . . . we operate only with the homoousion of the Spirit, detached from thehomoousion of the Son, we would have no conceptual content in our reference backto God apart from what we might derive from our own subjective states, and noobjective ground of intelligibility in God to control and to relativize our creaturelyrepresentations and conceptions.

78 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p. 218. Cf. Torrance, The School of Faith,pp. xcviixcviii.

79 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p. 219.


400 Matthew Baker

To this, one must add that, in contrast to the Cappadocian Fathers whosetheology formed the immediate basis for the creed of Constantinople 381,80Torrances panacea urges an abandonment of all causal attribution, entailing adynamic substantialism in which arc+ and ait0a are conceived as referring torelations or sc(sei . . . beyond all origin ( # ' ), and beyond all cause(# ' ) a position Torrance claims is a recovery of that of Athanasius, Cyriland the later Nazianzen.81 This proposal, which finds precedent in Calvin and,curiously, Bulgakov,82 may prove yet highly problematic for further ecumenicaldiscussion. Torrances treatment of monarchia in particular calls for closequestioning by Orthodox scholars, with a re-examination of relevant patristicsources.83

Caveats notwithstanding, the profound agreement between Florovsky andTorrance regarding the eternal propriety of the Spirit to the Son and the practicalecclesial importance of this teaching does suggest the possibility of deepertheological convergence. Though more distinctly Chalcedonian, the basic shape ofFlorovskys theology agrees with Torrances call for return to the Athanasian-Cyrilline axis84 of patristic Christology as a ground for dogmatic renewal andecumenical reconcilation. Here the common reference to Athanasius Ad Serapion aspneumatological touchstone is especially significant.

Sharpening this touchstone beyond Torrance, further agreement might bepossible if Reformed theologians would attend to the fundamentally Athanasianbasis of the essence / energy distinction crucial to Orthodox doctrine regarding theSpirits eternal manifestation. In his essays St. Gregory Palamas and the Traditionof the Fathers (1959) and St. Athanasius and the Concept of Creation (1962),Florovsky sketched an understanding of the so-called Palamite distinction as

80 Cf. John Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics (Rollinsford, NH:Orthodox Research Institute, 2004), p. 33:

The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are taken on the basis of Patristictheology. For this reason, when we examine the Creed of Nicaea or the Creed ofConstantinople, we need to turn to the writings of the Fathers who participated inthese councils . . . in order to understand exactly what these Creeds mean.

81 Thomas Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), p. 239.82 Like Torrance, Bulgakov places the onus of the filioque impasse on Basil for his

introduction of causal categories: The Comforter, pp. 1326.83 See John Zizioulas, The Father as Cause: Personhood Generating Otherness, in

Communion and Otherness (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006), pp. 11354, although theradicalization of the person/nature distinction elsewhere pervasive in Zizioulas worksmay create its own problems, particularly for anthropology and ethics. For criticisms ofTorrances reading of Gregory Nazianzen, see Christopher A. Beeley, Divine Causalityand the Monarchy of God the Father in Gregory of Nazianzus, Harvard TheologicalReview 100 (2007), pp. 199214.

84 Thomas F. Torrance, Theology in Reconciliation (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975),p. 9; Thomas F. Torrance, ed., Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and ReformedChurches, vol. I (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1985), pp. x, 11, 14.



an elaboration upon the Athanasian differentiation between essence and will.85Ironically, while Torrance cites both essays positively, admitting a specialindebtedness to the second,86 he dismisses Palamas theology as dualist87 andneglects the presence of this distinction in Athanasius88 and Cyril. Yet it is, afterall, Cyril whom Palamas quotes when he writes: Nature and energy are notidentical.89 Precisely here, Torrances apprehension of the Athanasian-Cyrillineaxis requires deepening by Florovskys insights, with more careful return toprimary texts.

This is to pose a challenge to the Orthodox as well. A significant strand ofOrthodox theology since Lossky has tended to employ Palamas in near-mimicryof neo-Thomist estimations of Aquinas, as the summation and interpretive lens of theentire Orthodox tradition. A vulgarised Losskianism,90 marked by fixation withthe energies paradigm and an exaggerated apophaticism which easily transformsitself into its opposite, threatens to displace the centrality of Christology.91 FollowingFlorovsky, Orthodox theologians must learn to re-present the Palamite distinctionfor what it is: not an a priori metaphysical principle or a species of vague mysticism,but a commentary upon the Nicene faith, an intellectual contour of an essentiallyChristocentric confession.92

85 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, pp. 11619; Georges Florovsky, Aspects of ChurchHistory (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), pp. 3962.

86 Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, pp. 79, 85 and esp. 86; Thomas F. Torrance, TheChristian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), pp. 4, 96, 207, and DivineMeaning (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), pp. 181, 185.

87 Thomas F. Torrance, Trinitarian Perspectives (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), p. 38.88 Athanasius, Contra Arianos, III.30; De Decretis, II, etc.89 Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus 18, PG lxxv, 312C; Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural

and Theological Science: One Hundred and Fifty Texts, in G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrardand Kallistos Ware, Philokalia, Vol. IV (London: Faber and Faber, 1995), p. 392.

90 Aidan Nichols, Light from the East (London: Sheed and Ward, 1999), p. 32.91 Florovsky himself, in Review of The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 208,

criticized Lossky for downplaying the role of intellectual cognition and, more gravely, fora lack of christological focus:

If one wants, as Lossky obviously does, to develop a system of Christianphilosophy, which is identical with Christian Dogmatics, should he not begin withChrist? Indeed, what warrant may a Christian theologian have to speak of God,except the fact that the Only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father hasdeclared the unfathomable mystery of the Divine Life? Would it not be proper,therefore, to begin with an opening chapter on the Incarnation and the Person of theIncarnate, instead of following a rather philosophical order of thought: God,Creation, Created Being, and Imago Dei, etc., so as to arrive at Christology only inthe middle of the road?

92 Ludovikos, Ontology Celebrated, p. 148, states:Christ, the only-begotten Logos of the Father, the bearer of his will, takes with himin his incarnation all the logoi of beings which rest in him and holds them together,in an ontological, hypostatic mode of existence. By this hypostatic union the logoi or


402 Matthew Baker

Such return to the fullness of christological vision demands a re-focusing: fromfascination with esoteric peripheries, to the axis of Orthodoxy. This is to followFlorovskys own stated criterion, that neo-patristic synthesis begin with the centralvision of the Christian faith: Christ Jesus, as God and Redeemer, Humiliated andGlorified, the Victim and the Victor on the Cross.93 Theological elaboration mustproceed in the recognition that knowledge of the Trinity is a function94 of theknowledge of Christ: as Florovsky cites Theophan the Recluse, Christiansapprehend first the Person of Christ the Lord, the Son of God Incarnate, and behindthe veil of His flesh they behold the Triune God.95 Only in the confession of theeternal Spirit of the Son the Spirit who illumines the Son in whom we beholdthe one form of God in our humanity can Orthodox theology offer compellingevangelical witness in both East and West, and the case of distinctions stiffened intocontradictions96 characterizing the filioque controversy be overcome, in a new act ofecumenical reintegration.

As this essay has sought to demonstrate, significant steps towards suchreintegration may already be observed from both sides in the work of Florovsky andTorrance, with their common emphasis on the Spirits propriety to the Son adoctrine whose historical force in the East provoked the following comment ofTorrance, perhaps the best summary response to the arguments of Barth:

It is one of the curious features of church history that the Western Church whichhad officially championed the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed hastened in practice to ignore it, whereas the EasternChurch which decidedly rejected it has tended to uphold the emphases which itwas designed to safeguard without of course ever agreeing to the formalstatement that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.97

divine wills are made fully apparent in the flesh of Christ (and can be offered to usby the sacraments). So our participation in the divine energies is simply the way ofour participation in the crucified and resurrected Christ. We thus easily understandthat the question of the logoi or energies is not the fundamental theological cruxregarding our salvation. The hypostasis of the incarnated Son and his relationship tothe Father, which we enter not by nature but by grace (that is by adoption throughbaptism and the Eucharist), is our primary theological concern here. Consequently,that which is given to us is a personal tropos hyparxeos (mode of existence) by graceand not a participatory essentialist connection between different substances. Thisnew mode of existence, our adoption by the Father in Christ through the Spirit, isonly realized in this syn-energetic participation in Christs deified human nature.

See also Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, pp. 301 and 1389, n. 80.93 Georges Florovsky, Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church, in

Aspects of Church History, p. 23.94 T.F. Torrance, Ecumenism and Rome, Scottish Journal of Theology 37 (1984), p. 59.95 Florovsky, Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church, p. 23.96 Florovsky, Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church, p. 29.97 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, p. 229.



ijsthsept3baker libre

Documents

holy spirit

spirit of god

eternal spirit

spirit of christ

filioque interpolation

barths defense ofthe

florovskys theology

critique of barths defense