John Calvin on the Procession of the Holy Spirit

Adrian A. Helleman, Department of Religious Studies, University of Jos

Introduction

John Calvin (1509-1564) has been much maligned in Russia.  Unfortunately, those who are for the most part ignorant of his writings in the original languages are responsible for this.  There is a long heritage in that country of the Russian Orthodox Church engaging in polemics with Roman Catholics and Protestants by using secondary sources.  This is unfair to opponents, because the possibility of distorting their views is increased.  Ideally, the primary sources of opponents should be read in Latin and French, if possible, or in a good translation, at least.  Yet, until recently, Calvin’s writings were unavailable in the Russian language, except for a few small excerpts, but this has been rectified through the publication of his Institutes of the Christian Religion as Наставление в христианской вере.[1]  Russian scholars now have access in their own language to his magnum opus.  Thus it is indeed appropriate that I have selected John Calvin as the focus of this brief study on the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.[2]

The filioque, as it is also known, is a Western addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, and is generally acknowledged as being the major contributor to the schism between the Eastern and Western churches.  The term means "and from the Son,” which was not in the Creed as agreed to by the Council of Constantinople in 381, but was first inserted officially at the Synod of Toledo in 589.[3] 

In this article, I want to present Calvin’s view on this contentious issue.  I will attempt to show why the Western church, in general, and he, in particular, adopted this position.  What is sorely needed today is a greater understanding of each other’s positions by both of these important segments of the Christian church. While such an increased understanding will not by itself resolve this controversy, it may lead to a greater openness and acceptance of each other.  This openness is what I will try to achieve in my conclusion in which I examine the ecumenical implications of Calvin’s views and suggest some ways of transcending the conflict between the Eastern and Western churches. 

The doctrine of the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith.  Yet it is not an easy doctrine to understand.  The affirmation that there is only one God who exists in three persons is a mystery of faith that is confessed in countless churches all over the globe, but it defies a simple explanation.  The term Trinity, as is well known, is not found in Scripture, even though both the Old and New Testaments clearly teach the tri-unity of God.  Tertullian is credited with inventing the word “Trinity” (Latin: Trinitas), which has now became normative in the Western church.  The problem in understanding the idea of the Trinity comes in finding appropriate terminology to express it clearly and accurately.  Not only does philosophy play a role here but language itself does as well.  The Eastern and Western churches were divided already by language even before the schism occurred.  This problem has been compounded by the fact that terminology so often changes meaning over time, and thus the terms may no longer be understood the same way as they did when they were first conceived.  Tertullian also introduced the Latin term persona to translate the Greek word hypostasis that had increasingly gained acceptance in the Greek-speaking Eastern church, as well as the word substantia in order to express the idea of a fundamental unity within the Godhead.[4] 

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.  The Eastern and Western churches both believe that the Son is begotten of the Father, but they do differ regarding the relationship of the Father and Son to the Spirit.  The Eastern church affirms that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, while the Western church opts for a double procession, from the Father and the Son.  In other words, the Spirit proceeds from both.  These English terms, that translate the Greek terms gennesis and ekporeusis, respectively, sound clumsy.  For example, what does proceed mean?  At the Synod of Toledo the Western church reached a confessional settlement on this issue and unilaterally altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  To the traditional statement about the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father,” it added the phrase, “from the Son,” or filioque in Latin.  The Eastern church was and still is horrified by this.  The Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky goes so far as to claim that the filioque has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of the East and the West, and that all other differences, which historically accompanied or followed it, depend on it to a greater or lesser degree.[5] 

It would take us too far afield to discuss at length the theology behind both positions.  In brief, the East emphasizes the ontological, whereas the West stresses the relational.  The Eastern approach regards the Father as the sole source of divinity.  To affirm otherwise, according to the Orthodox, would mean that there are two sources of divinity, which would result in all sorts of contradictions and tensions.[6]  The Western approach, in contrast, is relational.  It begins with the unity of God and interprets the relation of the three persons in the Trinity in terms of their mutual fellowship and their role within the economy of salvation.  These are only a few generalized observations regarding this incredibly complex topic.[7]  The most significant influence on the development of the Western view can be discerned in Augustine.  Now is not the time, however, to discuss in any detail his approach to the Trinity, which aside from its formative influence in the West also has its weaknesses, but I do want to make just a few remarks about his view of the procession of the Holy Spirit before we examine Calvin’s position.  

In the West, Augustine developed the classic statement regarding the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son.  One of his main proof for this was John 20:22, in which Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”  Augustine explains his position as follows in On the Trinity: "Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son.  After all the Spirit of both the Father and the Son…. [John 20:22 is then cited] … The Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son."[8] 

In this statement, Augustine thought that he was expressing a general consensus within both the Eastern and Western churches.  But his knowledge of Greek was not sufficient for him to realize that the Greek-speaking Cappadocian Fathers had adopted a very different position.  Although Augustine does defend the distinctive role of the Father within the Godhead, by adding the qualifying word, “principally”—the Spirit proceeds principally from the God the Father, but also from the Son, his intention was to describe the Spirit as the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son, a relation he believed was foundational to the Fourth Gospel’s presentation of the unity of will and purpose of the Father and the Son.  Later Latin writers were more sensitive to the Greek position; these writers stressed that they did not regard their approach as presupposing two sources of divinity in the Godhead.  The Council of Lyon confessed, “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet not as from two origins but from one origin.”[9]  Calvin, as we shall see, largely follows Augustine in his understanding of the Trinity.

Calvin’s Views on the Trinity

Calvin’s most developed thoughts on the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Institutes (Book 1, Chapter 13).  He begins by noting that expressions such as the “Trinity” and “Person” can assist in the interpretation of Scripture (1.13.1) and have been helpful in exposing false teachers (1.13.4).  Yet he admits that theological terms have their limitations.  And he laments the difference between the Greeks and the Latins regarding such terminology and gives some examples (1.13.5). We do need language in order to be able to refute heresy, however, and he specifically mentions Arius and Sabellius. Calvin then goes on to explain the meaning of “Person,” which he understands as the “relation” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to each other (1.13.6).[10]  In the following sections, he discusses the divinity of Christ (1.13.7-13) and the Holy Spirit (1.13.14-15).  Calvin next points to biblical passages, Ephesians 4:5, where Paul connects God, faith and baptism, and Matthew 28:19, where Jesus issues the command, “Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  From these passages, Calvin infers that “in God’s essence reside three persons in whom one God is known.”  Since there is one God, he concludes “that Word and Spirit are nothing else than the essence of God  (1.13.16).” 

God is also three, confesses Calvin.  Scripture distinguishes the Father from the Word and the Word from the Spirit, and provides several examples of this.  He expresses his great delight in a quotation from Gregory of Nazianzus: “I cannot think of the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three: nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one” (1.13.17).  Calvin quotes this sentence in Greek and translates it into Latin.  Unlike Augustine, his knowledge of Greek was good and he was quite conversant with the Greek Fathers, whose influence can be discerned extensively in his writings.[11]  This should be kept in mind by those critics of Western theology who dismiss Calvin as ignorant of Eastern theology.  On the contrary, his familiarity with the Greek Fathers has ecumenical implications, as I shall point out later. 

Calvin uses several common images in order to illustrate the difference of Father Son and Holy Spirit:  “to the Father is attributed the beginning of activity, and the fountain and well-spring of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; but to the Spirit is assigned the power and efficacy of that activity.”  Calvin admits that Father, Son and Spirit share the same eternity, and yet it is proper for us to think first about the Father, then move to the Son and finally to the Spirit: “For the mind of each human being is naturally inclined to contemplate God first, then the wisdom coming forth from him, and lastly the power whereby he executes the decrees of his plan” (1.13.18). 

In the sentence that follows immediately after this, Calvin mentions the filioque for the first and only time in the Institutes: “For this reason, the Son is said to come forth from the Father alone; the Spirit from the Father and the Son at the same time.”[12]  As support for this, Calvin refers to Romans 8, where the Spirit is variously called the Spirit of Christ (vs. 9) and the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead (vs. 11).  He also combines two texts, 2 Peter 1:21 and 1 Peter 1:11, to indicate that “it was by the Sprit of Christ that the prophets prophesied, even though Scripture often teaches that it was the Spirit of the Father” (1.13.18).  From the context we can infer that Calvin’s choice for the filioque is connected with the activities of the persons of the Godhead.  This focus is very helpful to our understanding why Calvin opted for this position, and this should become even clearer shortly. 

Regarding the Trinity, in general, and the filioque, in particular, Calvin sees himself as standing in the tradition of the councils and the Fathers of the church.  This is very clear from the French Confession of Faith (1559), composed by him and his student Antoine de la Roche Chandieu.  Article VI confesses concerning the Holy Spirit: “Le Saint-Esprit procédant éternellement de tous deux.”  How Calvin and Chandieu wished their views to be in understood is evident in this article: “Et en cela avouons ce qui a été déterminé par les conciles anciens, et détestons toutes sects et hérésies qui ont été rejetées par les saintes docteurs, comme saint Hilaire, saint Athenase, saint Ambroise, et saint Cyrille.”[13]  

In the next section, Calvin continues by discussing the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit.  Each of them shares the same divine nature, with the qualification that each possesses his own peculiar quality.  The Father is wholly in the Son, just as the Son is wholly in the Father.  Following Augustine, the distinction lies in their mutual relationships and not in their essence (1.13.19).  Before Calvin refutes various heresies directed against the Trinity, he offers a brief summery of this doctrine: “when we profess to believe in one God, under the name of God we understand a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons or hypostases” (1.13.20).  The rest of this chapter is devoted to the refutation of assorted heretics, such as Servetus and Valentine Gentile, both of whom had lived in Geneva and were known to Calvin personally.  He defends the doctrine of the Trinity specifically against their heresies (1.13.21-29).  We do not need to examine his refutations closely now, since they primarily concern the divinity of the Son.  As Calvin explains, almost parenthetically, divinity always remains a mystery (1.13.21): "But if some distinction does exist in the one divinity of Father, Son and Spirit—something hard to grasp—and occasions to certain minds more difficulty and trouble than is expedient, let it be remembered that men’s minds, when they indulge their curiosity enter into a labyrinth.  And so let them yield themselves to be ruled by the heavenly oracles, even though they may fail to capture the height of the mystery." 

Calvin discusses the Holy Spirit more extensively elsewhere in the Institutes, especially in Book 3.  The structure of the Institutes, it should be noted, is Trinitarian and follows the order of the Apostles Creed: the Father is the focus of Book 1, the Son of Book 2, and the Spirit in Book 3.  The last book, Book 4, deals with the means of grace.  Here Calvin discusses the Holy Catholic Church, and in the final chapter of that book he mentions civil government.  That book too belongs to the purview of the Spirit, since it is the Holy Spirit who applies the work of Christ. 

For Calvin, the Holy Spirit does not initiate any new work, but he honors the finished work of Christ.  It is typical of the person and work of the Spirit that he does not draw attention to himself, but fixes our attention fully on the work of the risen Lord.  Calvin describes the Holy Spirit as “the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself” (3.1.1).  The Father endowed Christ with the Spirit, in order “to separate us from the world and to gather us unto the hope of eternal inheritance.”  Thus the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of Sanctification.”  And Calvin adds: “God the Father gives us the Holy Spirit for his Son’s sake, and yet he has bestowed the whole fullness of the Spirit upon the Son to be minister sand steward of his liberality.  For this reason, the Spirit is sometimes called the “Spirit of the Father,” sometimes the “Spirit of the Son” (3.1.2).   Calvin explains further that “faith is the principal work of the Spirit.” The Spirit is “our inner teacher” through whose effort we learn to understand the promise of salvation; and it is through the Spirit that Christ, “our inner Schoolmaster,” draws us to himself (3.1.4).  Notice how Christ and the Spirit are both described here as teachers. 

Calvin’s description of the Spirit is clearly relational and not ontological.  The Spirit is the Enabler of all things.  In the Creation account we read already that “the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2).  Calvin explains that this shows "… not only that the beauty of the  universe (which we now perceive) owes its strength and preservation to the power of the Spirit, but that before this adornment was added, even then the Spirit was occupied with tending that confused mass.… For it is the Spirit who, everywhere diffused, sustains all things, causes them to grow, and quickens them in heaven and in earth, … transfusing into all things his energy, and breathing into them essence, life and movement.…" (1.13.14). 

I could continue, but this should be enough to show that Calvin is concerned especially with describing the activity of the Spirit.  He emphasizes the role of the Spirit in the economy of salvation.  The person and work of the Spirit are viewed from his role within the Godhead where he puts the finishing touches on the work that the Father and the Son have initiated.  Calvin does not, even for a moment, attempt to describe the essence of the Spirit, since that remains a mystery of which we will always “fail to capture the height.”   Instead, we must allow ourselves “to be ruled by the heavenly oracles” (1.13.20).  And the only way we can know the Triune God is as he has revealed himself to us in his Sacred Word. 

Calvin’s Trinitarian method of theologizing demonstrates his acceptance of the ancient doctrines of perichoresis and appropriation; even though he does not use these terms in his writings, still they are implied in his views on the Trinity and, especially, on the relationships of the Persons of the Godhead to each other.  Perichoresis is an ancient term that refers to the manner in which the three persons of the Trinity relate to each other: each person penetrates the others, and is, in turn, penetrated by them.  Appropriation is related to perichoresis.  The work of the Trinity is a unity; every person of the Trinity is involved in every outward action of the Godhead, in contrast to modalism, which argues that each of the persons of the Trinity exists in a different mode of being, so that God can function at one point as Father, at another point as Son, and at still another as Holy Spirit.[14]  To the charge of introducing a new theology, Calvin would have pleaded in his own defense, since he was a lawyer as well as a theologian, that he is simply repeating what the ancient creeds confessed and was taught by the church Fathers.  Even his method of doing theology, he would insist, does not deviate from traditional methods, though he does not use specifically Eastern methods.

An Evaluation of Calvin’s Views on the Filioque

The amount of material in Calvin’s Institutes on the filioque is rather sparse, I concede immediately.  Even if we add the French Confession, there is hardly enough in both, except to be able to conclude that he clearly opted for the Western position.  Regarding his motivation, we have to infer it by reading between the lines, and yet this can be very productive. 

What we can deduce in this way is, first of all, the apologetic nature of Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity.  He seeks to defend it against heresies, both ancient and contemporary.  His intention is important, even if the filioque, in this case, is not the issue in dispute.  The struggle against heresy is what led to the formulation of the ancient creeds of the Church.  The Institutes are a manual for the preparation of new pastors and teachers.  As such, certainly in his time, it was necessary to deal with heresies that were often revivals of ancient heresies, although in a new guise.  His intention should be kept in mind when we try to determine why he chose the Western rather than the Eastern position.  The apologetic nature of many of his writings, especially the Institutes, helps us to appreciate why he wrote his magnum opus, even if we do not fully understand his position on the filioque.  He stands in the footsteps of the Fathers of the church, both Greek and Latin, in his struggle against heresy. 

Regarding the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, Calvin seems to assume that, by affirming this, he is in continuity with the ancient councils and the Fathers of the church.  Since Calvin was well versed in the Fathers, he is not being obtuse when he does this; nor does he argue the point, but simply assumes it.  Apparently, he has bigger issues to deal with than the procession of the Spirit; he is particularly concerned with refuting Servetus, who is his bête noir.  This assumption is not without some warrant, since the Greek tradition was not entirely unanimous on the issue of the Spirit.  Cyril of Alexandria, for example, did not hesitate to speak about the Spirit as “belonging to the Son.”  In the Western church, such ideas were developed further, even though early Christian writers were often deliberately vague about the precise role of the Spirit within the Godhead.  Hilary of Poitiers, in his treatise On the Trinity, writes about the Spirit in such a way that some have understood him to accept only the divinity of the Father and the Son, but elsewhere in this treatise it becomes clear that he regards the New Testament as pointing to the Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son, and not from the Father alone.  And, as we have already noted, Augustine gave this doctrine its classic statement, possibly by building on this position that is hinted at by Hilary.[15]  

In defending the doctrine of the Trinity against attacks by heretics, Calvin follows a traditional pattern that has led also to the formulation of the ancient Creeds.  These confessional statements arose in times when the Christian faith was not yet well formulated and was subjected to severe attack.  Therefore, they serve not only as attempts to express the consensus of the church on the crucial theological issues using the vocabulary of that age, but also to stake out boundary posts, as if to announce to believers and heretics alike, beyond this point you cannot go and still be considered a member of the church.  This is how we understand the faith.  If you cannot agree with this creed or confession, then there is no room for you in our midst.  In every age, the church is called to restate the ancient faith, using contemporary words, in order to ward off the attacks of those who would seek to undermine or even to destroy that faith through a blatant denial of the cardinal doctrines.  

Calvin defended the faith against heresy in his age, especially through the publication of the Institutes, which represents his most developed thought, since it grew and changed for twenty-five years, and appeared in several editions.  Each time, he would add more material until it achieved its final form in 1560, shortly before his death.  On the doctrine of the Trinity, his opponent was, especially, a Spaniard, Michael Servetus, who was the first and most outstanding representative of anti-Trinitarian thought in the Reformation period, and who was despised by both Roman Catholics and Protestants for his views and eventually executed.  In addition, Calvin also helped to produce the French Confession of Faith, which provides a clear exposition of the Christian faith as understood by the Reformed churches in France and Switzerland. 

Calvin’s understanding of the role of the Spirit within the Trinity, as we have noted already, is clearly relational.  The implications of his view for theology, as well as for society, are too extensive to deal with at this moment.   I simply want to present his view as succinctly and accurately as possible.  The focus of this study is his view on the procession of the Spirit.  While what he says on it is very brief, he presents the Western position of the Spirit’s procession from both the Father and the Son with typical clarity.  He seems to assume the correctness of this position, without arguing it at all, except for his reference to the passages from Romans and the two Petrine epistles.  The most likely explanation for this is that the Institutes was written for pastors and teachers in the West.  Calvin did feel any need to defend himself or his views against Eastern theologians.  It was not the subject of attack by heretics in the Western church, and thus it did not deserve a more extensive treatment or justification.  He could safely assume that everyone in his immediate readership would agree with the Western position.  And thus, from his point of view, no more needed to be said. 

Where does that leave us today, who are trying to read and understand Calvin in Russia or elsewhere in the Orthodox world, during the beginning of the third millennium?  If Calvin simply asserts the Western position without providing a new rationale for it, why should we even bother to discuss his view on this topic?  That is the question that I will deal with in the next section, in which I will examine some possible ecumenical implications of Calvin’s views.

Ecumenical Implications

That the Eastern and Western churches are divided on the topic of the procession of the Holy Spirit is evident to everyone, but that is also where any agreement stops.  Historically, two questions have been raised concerning this issue: (1) Does the Holy Spirit, in fact, proceed from the Son as well as from the Father?  (2) Once a creed has been adopted by the authority of the church assembled in a worldwide council of bishops, is it lawful to amend the text of that Creed by any lesser authority than a similar council?  East and West have given widely differing answers.  The resolution of this contentious issue, which was the major factor in the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, even if one does not endorse Lossky’s opinion on it being exclusively the font of every difference between them, seems to be wellnigh impossible.  How can these two traditions get out of this impasse?  On the basis of our brief reading of Calvin’s view, I would like to make several suggestions. 

 First, we must all learn to tone down our rhetoric on this issue.  With all due respect to Lossky, he has stoked the fire rather than helped to resolve the dispute. According to him, reconciliation will only be possible and the filioque will not longer be an impediment, when the West, which has been isolated for so long, he claims, recognizes that only Byzantine theology has expressed the truths of tradition.[16]  If I understand Lossky correctly, that is tantamount to asserting that only Byzantine theology is true.   Such assertions are singularly unhelpful, especially in the context of ecumenical discussions, in resolving the dispute.  Instead, the quiet, dispassionate tone that Calvin adopts when he discusses the filioque may ultimately be more beneficial.  Lossky seems to reduce theology to a zero-sum game in which only one side can win.  What is needed, instead, is a win-win situation for both sides of this long-lasting dispute.  The resolution certainly does not lie in the avenue that Lossky proffers. 

Initially, the suggestion of the World Council of Churches seems to be more helpful in resolving this debate.  On the basis of an ecumenical study of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, entitled Confessing the One Faith, it affirms that many of the issues in the dispute over the filioque have been clarified through the contemporary theological discussions between Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians.  This study does concede that the problem has not yet been officially solved, even though some supporters of the Filioque are prepared “to remove” the addition, either occasionally or even permanently.[17]  But it seems to skirt largely over the profound theological differences that still remain when it offers its explanation of the crucial clause (without the Western addition), that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”: "This is the Father from whom the Son is begotten.  The affirmation of the procession of the Spirit from the Father includes a profound  understanding of the relation between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit in the breathing forth and as breathed forth is always in relation to the Son.  Therefore, the communion and unity of the Spirit with Christ is indissoluble."[18]   

And in the next paragraph, this study continues in a similar vein: " Despite the controversy created by the introduction of the term filioque by Western Christians to express this latter relation, both Western and Eastern Christians have wished to be faithful to the affirmation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and both agree today that the intimate relationship between the Son and the Spirit is to be affirmed without giving the impression that the Sprit is subordinated to the Son.  On that affirmation all Christians can agree and that enables an increasing number of Western churches to consider using the Creed in its original form."[19] 

The Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue came to the same conclusion regarding the Western addition to the Creed and how this dispute should be resolved: 

The Anglican members therefore agree that:

(a)     because the original form of the Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father,

(b)     because the Filioque clause was introduced into this Creed without the authority of an Ecumenical Council and without due concern for Catholic consent, and

(c)     because this Creed constitutes the public confession of faith by the People of God in the Eucharist,

the Filioque clause should not be included in this Creed.[20]

While these proposals have merit as the results of serious ecumenical discussions, they too fail.  In this case, failure is the result of not taking the historical differences seriously enough.  Both reports seem to capitulate to the Orthodox churches, while Western objections are swept under the carpet, as it were.  Every attempt to harmonize the Eastern and Western views is doomed to failure as long as it is assumed that the Eastern view is the only correct one, since it predates the Western addition.  This may be true from a chronological perspective, but it presupposes that antiquity is equivalent to truth.  But is this a valid argument?  I doubt that.  While we must revere the creeds of the church, we must also recognize that they are historically qualified.  I mean by this that the creeds are the expressions of the faith of the church at a particular moment in history.  But this does not detract, in the least, from their normative character.  Nevertheless, all creeds are, by their very nature, rooted in a particular moment of history.  There are, therefore, limitations imposed upon these confessions, of which first and foremost is the language that is used, whether philosophical or theological.  

The early Church Fathers, both Latins and Greeks, said in different words that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."  The expression "from the Father through the Son" was accepted by many Orthodox and had led to a reunion of the Orthodox churches with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence.  Unfortunately, that union did not last.  However, union is still possible today on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" have a similar meaning.  That profound differences will remain is undeniable; we will not discuss them now, but leave them for further discussion.  

Today many scholars understand the theological positions at stake and recognize the validity of both the Eastern and Western positions, when viewed from their respective standpoints.  Even some Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and are again acknowledging that there is no need for continued separation between the two communions on this issue.  Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, now states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble.  Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences."[21]  That is perhaps too strong a statement for many people, but everyone will agree that the continuation of this conflict is not purely for theological reasons, because political factors and jurisdictional issues have also played an important role.  Political factors certainly contributed to the development of this dispute, because the filioque did not become a major issue until the time of Photius. 

If it is indeed true, as Bishop Kallistos suggests, that the conflict lies especially in the area of semantics and different emphases, then a resolution is indeed possible.  But much more work will need to be done to expose these emphases.  Here our brief study of Calvin may prove helpful.  From his short discourse on this topic there are a number of points that I would like to enumerate: 

1.        The filioque was not a major issue for Calvin.  In fact, he does not even argue it.  His primary concern was to fight heresy.  Since this doctrine was not being called into question by the heretics that he was combating, he did not discuss it at any length.  Not that he was totally unaware of the issue, since he knew church history, but it was not important enough for him to argue.  This should be kept in mind when ask ourselves why he simply adopted the Western position without any apology or explanation.  A simple answer is: he had more important issues to deal with. 

2.        His concern to combat heresy is one that Calvin shares with many church Fathers, both Latin and Greek.  In order to do this, he used the tools that were available to him and he emphasized what the heretics denied.  A similar concern led to the formulation of the creeds, as we have already noted. It motivated Calvin to write the Institutes, as well as his other polemical and confessional writings.  It is this concern that also provides an opening for ecumenical dialogue.  The emphases that are the most useful in fighting heretics can be easily discerned from his writings.  Many of these emphases are common to the Western church, because of the heresies that were attacking the Christian faith.  In the West, the filioque developed in response to the Arian heresy, in order to defend the divinity of the Son.  Similar attacks were made against the doctrine of the Trinity in Calvin’s time, and thus it hardly surprising that he opted for the Western position.  In fact, so much so that it was axiomatic for him.  These Western emphases can be balanced with the corresponding Eastern ones.  Truth is not a zero-sum game, as if only the East or the West is correct and the other is wrong.  Maybe both can be right, certainly as viewed from the context in which their respective theologies developed.  Thus we will need to learn to be more accepting of each other’s views and to refrain from making apodictic judgments about them.  Understanding and not condemnation is required. 

3.        The political factors that have led to the development of the Eastern and Western positions on the filioque should not be discounted.  Calvin was certainly aware of similar developments in the case of other doctrines, but which he did not discuss them in this instance because it was not pertinent.   Yet we cannot avoid dealing with these factors openly and honestly.  Let us drop the pretence that ecumenical councils consist only of saints, and admit that non-theological factors have played very significant roles in the formulation even of the creeds.  Let us also stop pretending that only one theological method is correct. No resolution of the filioque controversy will be possible if we do.  Theology is only a feeble, truly human attempt to describe God and his activity.  It is fallible, as is every human activity, since it too has been tainted by sin.  With less hubris or more humility, we may be able to reach out to each other and share the insights that the Spirit has given to us.  These insights are never our exclusive possession but need to be shared with others.  Nor are they reasons for pride, as if we had developed them by ourselves, without outside help.  If one tradition claims that it alone has the true theology, and even more, if it claims that it alone is the true church, then it is due for a fall, since God will judge such behavior for what it is: pride or even arrogance, and thus sinful.  It is clear that ecumenical discussions are impossible under such circumstances. 

4.        By affirming that there is a difference in emphases, we are not skirting over the differences that yet remain.  These will not be easy to harmonize, and some may prove exceedingly difficult to resolve.  We may well have to admit that they are insoluble, in part because of the theological language that is used and in part because of theological method.  But this does not mean that we should give up.  On the contrary, we must become even more firmly committed to resolve this controversy.  The solution does not lie in merely removing the filioque from the Creed, as has been often proposed.  While this should certainly be done in the case of joint ecumenical worship services, in order not to offend Orthodox believers, it does nothing to express Western concerns about heretical attacks on the Trinity.  Until these concerns are addressed, any proposals to eliminate the filioque will be perceived as concessions to Orthodox sensitivities that largely ignore the validity of what the West wanted to accomplish.  There is indeed merit in not amending the creeds of the church, but this is an instance of an addition that was adopted by a large segment of the church, admittedly without ecumenical approval.  If there is to be a final resolution, a new ecumenical council may need to be called some day.  Who would call this council, however, is an intractable problem, since there is currently no emperor who would able to fulfil that role.  For historical reasons, there is merit in the WCC and Anglican proposals to eliminate the filoque, but they will not be sufficient to resolve the debate, since they do not deal adequately with all the issues involved.  They do represent noble and well-intentioned efforts, nevertheless, to resolve this issue and as such deserve to be commended even though they should not be implemented.

5.        Calvin was an ecumenist long before it became popular in the twentieth century.  In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he testified that he was prepared to cross many seas, if necessary, to promote church unity.  What might he have been willing to do at the beginning of the third millennium to resolve this dispute?  That is question we will never be able to answer.  I suspect, however, after studying his ecumenical thought for many years, that he would have been willing to sacrifice much for the sake of reuniting the Eastern and Western branches of the Christian church.  The task of the resolution of this issue now devolves into the hands of his descendants and all those who identify themselves with some part of the Eastern and Western churches.  This article alone will certainly not be able to resolve this debate, nevertheless, it is my fervent hope and prayer that it may make a small contribution to this effort.  Christian theologians from both the Eastern and Western churches, who have discussed the issue of the filioque at great length, especially in the last few decades, are working towards a consensus.  Thus there is new hope for solving this problem.  As long as the Eastern and Western segments of the Christian church continue to listen to each other and remain open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then much is indeed possible.  May God richly bless all these efforts.  Calvin himself concluded many of his writings with these words: Soli Deo Gloria, to God alone be the glory.  May that be our prayer as well as we together strive for Christian unity.