The teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, sometimes called double procession, is known as the filioque. As A. Edward Siecienski lays out in his history of the filioque controversy, it dates back at least to Augustine in the fifth century. It was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed by the Third Council of Toledo, a regional council in Spain, in 589. By 1014, the Pope added the filioque to the Roman liturgical creed. In The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, Jaroslav Pelikan notes that the East rejected this addition to the Nicene creed by the West on two grounds: theological and ecclesial. Theologically, the East believed that the West’s doctrinal innovation resulted in two principles of origin within the Godhead. The ecclesial objection claimed that the Pope did not have the authority to change the creed of an ecumenical council—only another ecumenical council could do that.
As Gerald Bray noted in a JETS article over twenty-five years ago, most evangelicals do not have much to say regarding the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. But those who do usually adopt the Western position of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. When evangelicals discuss the debate, they tend to focus on the theological issue and assess whether the filioque is true. While the issue of whether the filioque is correct theology is extremely important, evangelicals should also consider the second issue, especially as there is a growing awareness among evangelicals of the need to retrieve creedal theology in our churches. Some may dismiss the issue by saying that since evangelicals already reject papal authority, it does not matter whether the pope had the authority to change the creed. However, the question must be asked: If evangelical churches continue to recite the creed with the filioque clause, even if they reject papal authority, what authority do they have to change the creed?
In this paper, I will argue that evangelicals should not include the filioque clause when reciting the Nicene creed in their liturgies, even if, as I do, they believe it represents good theology. As Philip Cary argues in his introduction to the Nicene Creed, one can accept the filioque as a theologoumenon without claiming it is essential to the Nicene faith. The original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed does not exclude the filioque as a potential doctrine. In making my argument for this claim, I will pay special attention to how the issue affects evangelical confession of faith, especially regarding its catholicity, and the role the Nicene creed plays in evangelical biblical interpretation.