It is no understatement to claim that the filioque is one of the most divisive issues in the history of Christianity. However, for Protestant Christians, particularly those within what Richard Muller calls the “Reformed Orthodoxy,” the filioque has been the default understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In this paper, I will argue that Protestants should not use the filioque when they say the Nicene Creed, regardless of their theological beliefs about its entailment in said creed. First, I will show that the ecumenical councils understood the creed to be unchangeable. Second, I will show that the council of Toledo (589) believed that it was preserving the Creed in its original wording and anathematized those who failed to do the same. Third, I will show that during the Photian Schism (863-7) both the Latin and Greek churches believed the Creed should be preserved without the filioque. Finally, I will argue that the Pope’s addition of the filioque to the Creed in 1014.00 does not entail the Creed has been changed unless one believes that Papal authority exceeds that of the Ecumenical councils.
The importance of this paper is twofold: first, it focuses on a time period that is virtually unknown to most evangelicals (381-1054), and second, clarity on evangelical use of the filioque in the Creed will lead to more orderly and God honoring services. At present, it is not uncommon for Protestant Churches to say the Nicene Creed with or without the filioque, or even to alternate their usage depending on the day; however, this is a less-than-ideal way for churches to operate. By setting aside the theological issue of the Spirit’s procession, which is by and large not controversial in Evangelical life, this paper will be able to focus on the issue of the Creed itself.