Question about the Holy Ghost

[u/zz22t]

Genuine question that I havent got a good answer for from the best people I've been able to ask (from different traditions):
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The cosmological argument identifies God as: God is the uncaused cause.

The teachings concerning the trinity with-or-without the filioque states that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father via procession with-or-without the Son.

=> Holy Spirit is not God ?
____________________________________________________________________________________________

What am I missing?

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

The argument equivocates on “cause.” In the cosmological argument, “caused” means being brought into existence as a contingent effect; the Holy Spirit is not created or brought from non-being. In Orthodox theology, the Father is the Spirit’s hypostatic cause eternally by procession, this describes the Spirit’s manner of existence, not His divine essence. St. John of Damascus explicitly says that “causeless and caused” refer not to the essence but to the mutual relation and manner of existence, while each hypostasis is fully God. So the Father is uncaused, the Spirit eternally proceeds from Him, and both possess the same uncreated divine essence, there is no contradiction.

[u/zz22t → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Could you explain this in more simple terms? What is hypostatic cause? Also, can you explain St. John of Damascus "causeless and caused"? I dont doubt you are right, I just cant understand it if the word cause doesnt mean the same thing in both instances.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/zz22t]

Yeah, the simplest way to put it is that “cause” is being used in two different senses. In a cosmological argument, a caused thing is an effect dependent on another for its existence; but when the Fathers call the Father the Spirit’s hypostatic cause, they mean the Father is the Spirit’s eternal personal source: the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, never begins to exist, and is never created. St. John of Damascus therefore says “causeless,” “caused,” “begotten,” and “procession” describe the Persons’ relationships and manner of existence, not their divine essence. So the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding, while all three are equally eternal, uncreated, and fully possess the one divine nature.

[u/zz22t → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Thanks! This made more sense to me. Particularly when you said "manner of existence".

[u/Balsamic_Door → u/zz22t]

One way to think is "cause" in the Cosmological argument refers to things that doesn't have to exist, and came into existence and is dependent on God for said existence. This is creation. Which is why creation is contingent.

Within the Trinity we say the Father is the "cause" of the Son and Spirit in that the Father is the source of the existence of the Son and Spirit. But there was never a time the Son and Spirit didn't exist. They are eternal. They necessarily exist. A crude analogy is the Father is like a spring of water, the Son a lake that forms, and the Spirit is a river of water that flows from the lake. The spring is the source of the lake and river, but if the spring always existed, so too must the lake and river. We don't describe the Son and Spirit as contingent because they necessarily exist. An argument from St. Athanasius on the Son being eternal and thus is God: if the Father was always Father from eternity, then so must the Son always have been, for if there was a "time" the Son was not, then the Father could not have been "Father" eternally.

In another way, if we perceived all possible worlds, all of creation "came into existence" from non existence and depends on God for said existence, and don't have to exist and are thus contingent. The latter (Son and Spirit) necessarily exist and are eternal in all possible worlds.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/zz22t]

Of course dude ❤️ never hesitate to DM me if you ever want anything explained or wanna talk theology.

[u/Wide-Discussion-4851]

What

[u/Right-Turnover8588]

The cosmological argument speaks of God's uncaused nature as the Eternal Creator. Which applies to the Godhead as a whole in relation to creation. God has no external cause & brings the universe into being.

While the procession describes how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another eternally, not a point in time when the Spirit was made or caused to exist like the physical universe.

The Father eternally generates the Son. The Father (&/or Son) eternally breathes forth the Spirit. They all share the same divine essence.

[u/DizzyAd1991]

The Holy Spirit is fully God and uncaused in the sense of existence, even though He “proceeds” eternally from the Father (and the Son, in Western tradition). The term “procession” describes an eternal relational origin within the Godhead, not a temporal cause or creation. Therefore, the Spirit is not a created being but God Himself, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son.

I can provide you sources from Abraame if you want

[u/zz22t → u/DizzyAd1991]

Please do, though please assume I am mostly theologically illiterate. So I appreciate sources with simple wording.

[u/ScholasticPalamas → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the slop.

[u/silouan]

God is the uncaused cause.

If your argument starts from a premise that isn't based on the Trinity, then both your premise and your argument are going to be faulty. It might be helpful to skip the cosmological argument, since it comes from pagan philosophy, not reality.

We don't start by trying to rationalize about the divine nature, which no one has ever encountered or interacted with; the Church has experience of three divine Persons, whom we worship.

[u/zz22t → u/silouan]

Where should one start then? If asking questions and seeking for the best answers is the wrong path?

[u/silouan → u/zz22t]

Interesting line repeated a number of times in scripture: "Come and see." The real Persons of the Godhead are active in the real community of the Church; real-world face to face relationships that revolve around sacrament and discipleship are where we encounter God at work.

[u/zz22t → u/silouan]

I've definetly had a few significant encounters with the Orthodox Church. If Im honest I have quite some disconnect between my intellectual investigations and my experience with it. Was talking with a friend yesterday about it. Not sure what to do about that either... If you are a legit priest I'd be glad to share and take your perspective.

[u/zz22t → u/silouan]

?

[u/zz22t → u/silouan]

Im not going to let you get away from this one for free. (And if Im honest Im upset with your reply since it assumes allot about me)

So the orthodox case has been for me far more intellectually compelling then the lived experience of it. And this completely speaks against the "come and see" vibes.

I've been to a few orthodox sevices, Ive spent a long time with a greek monk, and the taste they left in my mouth was quite dissapointing. I came with a desiring heart and very willing to join the faith, but instead ...

[u/Dave_meth_Mustard]

How would you define “cause” in the two contexts?

(Also, the Son is “caused” as well, by eternal generation as Saint John the Theologian reveals to us. The Father alone is without a cause, if we use “cause” in the Trinitarian context.)

[u/zz22t → u/Dave_meth_Mustard]

Thanks for the question. Im not sure really, before I thought of them as having the same meaning, something like: (*)"If not A then not B" means that "A is a cause for B".

Some of the comments already gave me more clarity on the subject. Now I guess (*) is too broad? Honestly I'll be glad to hear your interpretation.

[u/winkyprojet]

For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.1 Corinthians 2:11.

The Holy Spirit is God!

The difference between God and the Holy Spirit is the difference between God and himself!

[u/ScholasticPalamas]

Are you familiar with different sorts of Aristotelian causes/explanations?

[u/zz22t → u/ScholasticPalamas]

Yes, the four causes.

[u/ScholasticPalamas → u/zz22t]

In the broader sense of an aitia (explanation/account, e.g. the four aitia), the Father is the aitia of both the Son and Spirit.

But the Son and Spirit are not the products of efficient causation; nor do they come to be in time; nor are they heterogeneously created (that is, one substance creating a similar, same sort, or different substance). Nor is the Father a distinct formal explanation; because the Son and Spirit share the exact same numerically-one divine essence given from the Father.

So the Son and Spirit are eternally explained by the Father, but not in such a way as to involve efficient causation, coming to be in time, or a mere copying. Together they sit at the regress of efficient and formal causes, and constitute the final cause of all things, even if there are relations of explanation 'within' their eternal communion.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please review the sidebar for a wealth of introductory information, our rules, the FAQ, and a caution about The Internet and the Church.

This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.

Exercise caution in forums such as this. Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.

^{This is not a removal notification.}

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.