Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: How Do You Understand the Godhead?

Theology
287

I don’t understand why you say that it isn’t a prayer to God the Father. It’s parallel to Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Luke 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed,

Luk 22:42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

Jesus is fully-human. The prayer shows his humanity and his temptation to think that his Father has abandoned him. However, his full deity shows up in another word from the cross, thus resolving the previous temptation to question his Father.

Luk_23:46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

1 Like
288

Yes I agree with @Bruce_Leiter on this matter and yes I have talked abt this in the oneness vs trinity debate..so kudos Bruce, continue my brother

289

So there are three gods?

290

easy way to say is 1 divine essence of God (Ousia), three distinct hypostases, dont confuse between personhood and essence, i must say @BobEstey what u said abt Trinity, u compared to a father being lawyer etc..thats another word for modalism which is a heresy and this aligns with 20th century oneness

291

Here is a public document, i made (2 months ago) as a counter to oneness pentecostal and those who counter the trinity, if u want u can open it and read it, just click and u will see the document its public

@Johann, @SincereSeeker, @BobEstey @anon3111385

292

@Samuel_23

God is one in essence (ousia), existing eternally as three distinct persons (hypostases): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father begets the Son, not in time, not by creation, but by eternal generation (John 1:14, 1:18; Psalm 2:7).
The Son is eternally begotten, not made, of the same essence with the Father (John 10:30; Hebrews 1:3).
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and is sent by both the Father and the Son (John 14:26; 16:7), though He is not begotten.

Each person fully possesses the one divine essence, not partially or derivatively.
The Father plans, commands, and sends (Ephesians 1:3–5; John 3:16).
The Son obeys, speaks, reveals, redeems, and intercedes (John 5:19; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Timothy 2:5).
The Spirit applies, seals, guides, convicts, and regenerates (John 16:8; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 1:13–14).

They do not share divinity like partners in a team; they are the one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons.
They do not merge into one person, nor do they act impersonally; each person acts distinctly, yet never independently.

The Son did not send the Father, and the Spirit did not beget the Son.
The Father never becomes the Son or the Spirit, and the Spirit never incarnates, only the Son became flesh (John 1:14).
The Father never dies on the cross, only the Son dies, and He rises, and now reigns (Romans 6:10; Revelation 1:18).

Together, the Trinity creates (Genesis 1:1–2, John 1:3, Job 33:4), saves (Ephesians 1:3–14), and indwells the believer (John 14:23; Romans 8:9–11).
The Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Spirit seals, distinct roles, united will.

The Father begets, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.
The Father sends, the Son accomplishes, the Spirit applies.
One God, three persons, one essence, indivisible in being, distinct in personhood, harmonious in will.

This is the Trinity, not mythology, not math, not modalism, but divine mystery revealed in Scripture and secured at the cross.

J.

1 Like
293

Johann sir on fire
yes i have discussed in the above link in which i talked abt this oneness vs Trinity
Thanks
Johann sir

294

Amen, @Johann!! I couldn’t said it any better myself!

1 Like
295

God bless brother @Bruce_Leiter

Johann.

296

Samuel, I hear your effort to clarify the classical formulation of the Trinity—one ousia (essence), three hypostases (persons)—but we have to pause and ask: Are we explaining Scripture or defending a system built on post-biblical philosophy? The terms ousia and hypostasis are not found in the Bible. They originate in Greek metaphysics and were introduced centuries after the apostles, especially during the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, to reconcile perceived tensions in Scripture using philosophical categories foreign to the Hebrew worldview.

The concern with Oneness theology being “modalism” overlooks that modern Oneness teaching does not say God is one person acting as three masks. It affirms that the eternal, indivisible God revealed Himself fully in the man Christ Jesus—not as a role-play, but as a true union of God and man (John 14:10; Colossians 2:9). The biblical emphasis is not on eternal distinctions of personhood within God, but on the manifestation of the one God in time and space for redemption.

So rather than relying on terms like hypostasis and accusing modalism based on post-Nicene categories, we should ask: What does Scripture say? It says God is one (Deut. 6:4), and that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), not one of three distinct divine minds. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Col. 2:9), not shared across three persons. So while it may sound tidy to say “one essence, three hypostases,” that formulation isn’t rooted in inspired language—it’s a later interpretive model. The biblical model is simpler: one God, revealed in Christ, who now dwells in us by His Spirit.

297

And may God bless you too, @Johann!

1 Like
298

We are jumping into Real theology
Theology
One of the major theological issues that led to the Great Schism of 1054—which split the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic churches—was a disagreement over the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Originally, the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325, affirmed in A.D. 381 at the First Council of Constantinople) declared:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father…”
However, the Western Church later added the phrase “and the Son” (Latin: Filioque) so that it read:

“…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

This addition was meant to emphasize the unity of the Trinity, particularly the shared divine nature of the Father and the Son. It was widely adopted in the Latin-speaking West without the agreement of the Eastern Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church objected for two main reasons:

  1. Doctrinal: They believed the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as Jesus says in John 15:26: “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…”

  2. Canonical: They argued it was unlawful to alter the Creed without a universal (ecumenical) council.

Over time, this disagreement became symbolic of deeper theological and cultural differences between East and West—especially how each understood the relationships within the Trinity and the authority of the Church.

Modern dialogues between Catholics and Orthodox have acknowledged that the issue may be more about language and emphasis than outright contradiction, but it remains a major theological division.
Concepts involved:
Trinity: One God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Procession: Refers to the eternal relationship of origin within the Godhead

Filioque: Latin for “and the Son”

Ecumenical unity vs. doctrinal clarity
So the main question is:
Do you believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son—and why?
@SincereSeeker @KPuff @Johann @TheologyNerd @Bruce_Leiter @Dr_S @Bruce_leiter, @Soul @DrDale and others are welcome to help me with this problem

299

On December 7th, 1947, Jesus said the following:

And those who have Jesus in their hearts also have the Holy Spirit, for where I am, the Spirit of Love is, and it is sweet for Me to stay where the Spirit—Who proceeds from the Father and from Me and is Our Essence (Love)—is. (The Notebooks: 1945-1950)

Throughout September through November of 1950, Jesus spoke at length. At one point He affirmed the above again:

[…] His Most Holy Father, from Whom the Son is begotten and from the two of Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. (The Notebooks: 1945-1950)

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have all spoken about Their Holy Trinity—but Jesus has said there’s certain mysteries about it that won’t be revealed until we’re in Heaven—so I have more dictations by Them to share, but what I’ve shared thus far is sufficient for now.

1 Like
300

Maria Valtorta was shown a vision of this scene, and below is an excerpt of her description of what she witnessed and heard Jesus saying to the apostles in full:

Not one of you has asked Me again: “Where are You going?” Sadness is making you dumb. And yet My going away is a good thing also for you. Otherwise the Comforter will not come. I will send Him to you. And when He has come, through the wisdom and the words, the deeds and the heroism that He will infuse into You, He will convince the world of its deicide sin, and of justice with regard to My holiness. And a clear cut will divide the world into reprobates, enemies of God, and believers. The latter will be more or less holy, according to their will. But judgement will be passed on the prince of the world and his servants. I cannot tell you more, because you are not yet able to understand. But He, the Paraclete, will give you the whole Truth, because He will not speak as from Himself. But He will tell you everything He heard from the Mind of God and will announce the future to you. He will take what comes from Me, that is, what is still of the Father, and will tell you. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. V, ch. 598)

1 Like
301

1.Scripture
The Gospel of John 15:26 is the bedrock of orthodox pneumatology
as
When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.
(Scripture comes first, then private revelations)
Here we have the verb ἐκπορεύεται denotes the eternal hypostatic origin of the Spirit, exclusively from the Father. The son’s role as (“I will send”) pertains to the temporal mission, distinct from the eternal procession. To conflate is to blur the distinction between eternal being and temporal action, a methodological error foreign to the patristic mind.
2. Canonical inviolability
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, ratified at the First Council of Constantinople is an inviolable boundary of orthodoxy. Its formulation (“the Holy Spirit..who proceeds from the Father”) was decreed by an ecumenical synod binding all Christians. The unilateral addition of the Filioque by the Latin west, without the consensus of synods violates the conciliarity that defines the Church’s authority. The Third Canon of the Second Ecumenical council, and the decrees of the Council of Ephesus explicitly prohibit alteration to the Creed, rendering the Filioque a canonical transgression.
3. Trinity
In Trinitarian theology, the hypostases are distinguished by their modes of existence. The Father’s monarchy ensures that the Son and Spirit derive their essence from Him alone, though consubstantial. The Filioque risks introducing a secondary aitia in the Son, which could imply a double procession and confuse hypostatic properties. Gregory of Nyssa, in Ad Ablabium teaches that the Spirit’s procession is a unique relation to the Father, distinct from the Son’s generation. To assert that the Spirit proceeds from “Father and the Son” suggests a composite origin, underming the simplicity of the divine essence and introducing a speculative innovation alien to the apophatic restraint of Eastern Theology.
4. Pneumatological implications
The Holy Spirit as God in Himself possesses the fullness of divinity from the Father alone. The Filioque, by implicating the Son in the Spirit’s eternal origin, risks subordinating the Spirit, as if His divintiy were derivative of the Son. This contradicts the Orthodox affirmation of the Spirit’s coequality, as articulated by Athanasius in his Letters to Serapion, where the Spirit is fully divine, proceeding solely from the Father’s hypostasis. The Latin view, while intending to affirm the son’s divinity inadvertently creates a hierarchial Trinity, a notion rejected by the East as its very close to Arian or Sabellian errors.
5. Apophatic theology
The Orthodox approach to the Trinity is profoundly apophatic (negative theology) acknowledging the incomprehensibility of God’s essence. The Filioque, born of Latin scholasticism, reflects a cataphatic (affirmative theology) tendency to define ineffable relations within the Godhead. St.Maximus the Confessor in his Quaestiones as Thalassium warns against overdefining divine mysteries, urging a return to the simplicity of the Creed. The Filioque’s rationalistic precision disrupts the mystical balance of Trinitarian theology, prioritizing doctrinal clarity over ecumenical unity.
The Eastern Fathers like Athanasius, the Cappadocians, St. John of Damascus univocally affirm the Spirit’s procession from the Father.
An amazing quote which helps in understanding comes from De Fide Orthodoxa
“The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not from the Son, but through the Son in the economy”
The phrase “through the Son” pertains to the Spirit’s temporal mission, not His eternal original. Even western Fathers like Augustine often cited Filioque as ambiguous, in De Trinitate speaks of the Spirit as proceeding “principally” from the Father, aligning more closely with Orthodox monopatrism.
The Orthodox Church, in fidelity to the sacred deposit of faith, maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from The Father alone, as the sole aitia (cause) and principle of the Godhead. This doctrine rooted in the Nicene-Constantinopole creed safeguards the monarchy of the Father, the unoriginate source of divinity. The Father as fount of divinity, begets the Son by generation and spirates the Spirit by procession, each mode of origin being distinct and incommunicable. To posit that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son introduces a perilous dyarchy, fracturing the singular cause of the Father and risking a subordinationist or modalist distortion of the Triad.
The Cappadocian Fathers teach it the best.
Basil in De Spiritu Sancto delcares that the Spirit’s procession is from the Father, preserving the distinct properties of each hypostasis. Gregory of Nazianzus says that The Father is the uncaused cause, and to attribute the procession to the Son confounds hypostatic distinctions for the Son’s role is in the temporal mission of the Spirit, not His eternal original.

302

@Samuel_23

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and I say this not from tradition, but because Scripture says it plainly and precisely.

John 15:26 is the definitive text. Jesus says:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds [Greek: ἐκπορεύεται | ekporeuetai] from the Father, He will bear witness about Me.”

The Greek verb ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai) is not a general term for coming or being sent, it is the technical term used to describe the eternal procession or origin of the Spirit’s person within the Godhead. It appears only once in the New Testament regarding the Spirit’s origin, and it connects that origin to the Father alone. Jesus could have said “who proceeds from the Father and the Son,” but He did not. He made the distinction deliberately, He sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The sending (πέμπω, pempō) of the Spirit by the Son is about His mission in time, as seen in John 16:7, “I will send Him to you”, and Acts 2:33, where the risen and exalted Christ pours out the Spirit at Pentecost. But that is temporal mission, not eternal procession. The sending happens in redemptive history; the procession concerns the inner life of the Trinity before creation.

The Son gives the Spirit (John 20:22), sends the Spirit (John 16:7), and receives the promise of the Spirit from the Father (Acts 2:33). But again, none of these verbs refer to ἐκπορεύομαι, the term that defines where the Spirit comes from eternally.

Moreover, in Matthew 10:20, Jesus says:

“It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”
Here again, the Spirit is called the Spirit of your Father, not “the Spirit of the Father and the Son,” reinforcing that His eternal origin is from the Father.

Likewise, Ephesians 4:4–6 outlines the unity of the Spirit, the Lord (Jesus), and the Father, but again places the Father as the source of all, including the Spirit.

Even in 1 Corinthians 2:10–12, Paul describes the Spirit as the one who knows the depths of God, He searches “even the depths of God” and is given “from God,” again pointing to origin from the Father.

In Luke 11:13, Jesus says the Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask, again marking the Father as the source.

The pattern is unbroken:

The Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father, John 15:26

The Spirit is sent by the Son — John 16:7

The Spirit is given by the Father — Luke 11:13

The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father — Matthew 10:20

The Spirit is poured out by the exalted Christ from the Father — Acts 2:33

So to change this, to insert Filioque, “and the Son,” into that one divine verb, is to override Jesus’ own words. Scripture never says the Spirit ekporeuetai from the Son. Never.

Therefore, in obedience to the exact words of Christ, the verbs of Scripture, and the consistent direction of New Testament revelation, I believe and confess:

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone (John 15:26),
is sent by the Son in time (John 16:7),
and glorifies the Son by revealing Him to us (John 16:14)—
but His eternal personal origin is from the Father alone, not both.

J.

1 Like
303

Absolutely correct @Samuel_23- Scripture first, traditions second.

I believe what Jesus said.

John 15:26 is not ambiguous. Christ speaks:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from the Father, He will bear witness about Me.”

The Spirit proceeds, ἐκπορεύεται, not just “comes,” not just “sent,” but eternally originates, from the Father. The Son sends the Spirit, yes, but the sending is temporal (πέμπω, apostéllō), the procession is eternal (ἐκπορεύεται). Two verbs. Two meanings. One truth. The Son sends, the Spirit proceeds, and the Father is the sole fountainhead (ἀρχή).

Jesus could have said “who proceeds from the Father and Me,” but He didn’t. The grammar is surgical. Don’t rewrite Christ.

The Spirit is sent by the Son (John 16:7), given by the Father (Luke 11:13), breathed by the Son (John 20:22), poured out from the Father (Acts 2:33), but He proceeds from the Father alone. Not one verse says “the Spirit proceeds from the Son.” That’s theology without verbs. And Scripture does not yield that ground.

To say the Spirit eternally proceeds from both Father and Son introduces dual causality, and Scripture never teaches that. The Spirit is called the Spirit of your Father (Matt. 10:20), not “the Spirit of the Father and the Son.” The Son was begotten (monogenēs, John 1:14), the Spirit proceeds, two distinct origins, both from the Father. That is biblical monarchy. Not hierarchy. Not modalism.

Gregory of Nazianzus said it best: “The Father is the uncaused cause.” That is the fountainhead. The Son is begotten, the Spirit is spirated, but both from the Father. To say otherwise collapses the hypostatic distinctions into philosophical fog.

Even Augustine, the Latin favorite, admits in De Trinitate that the Father is the principal source and that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, not from the Son as from a second source. That “through” (διὰ) is economic, not ontological. The Son is the agent in time, not the origin in eternity.

If you insert Filioque, you’re not clarifying, you’re adding what the Lord did not say. You’re replacing Jesus’ verbs with Latin logic. That’s a dangerous exchange.

The Creed of 381, affirmed by the universal Church, says what Scripture says:

“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.”

The Filioque was a later Western addition, unratified by any ecumenical council, in defiance of Canon 7 of Ephesus and Canon 3 of Constantinople. That’s not fidelity. That’s tampering.

So let me speak plainly:
The Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, because that’s what Christ said.
The Son sends, because He was given that authority by the Father (John 14:26).
The Spirit glorifies the Son, but originates from the Father.

You want to honor the Trinity? Start with the verbs.
Jesus spoke with precision. We should not correct Him.

Let Scripture say what it says. Let Christ teach who the Spirit is. Let the verbs breathe.

Johann.

304

Yes true brother, scriptures are the foundation of doctrines and not vice-versa. It was done by the Catholic Church to introduce unity in trinity, I mean ..what does scriptures say, we must not perverse the truth to make what was revealed more appealing for our partners. What was revealed, keep it, don’t add to it or modify to make it more acceptable.

1 Like
305

Why did they divide over such a mysterious belief as the Trinity and the relationship of the three Persons? The three Persons are equal in status but different in their roles and work together to accomplish creation, salvation, and sanctification. Enlighten me more about Filioque, if you can.

By the way, @Samuel_23, in John 15:26-27, how much did East and West agree on verse 27?

Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
Joh 15:27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning."

Of course, the order of roles is clear in Jesus’ promise. The Spirit comes to us from the Father through Jesus. Why do we have to know more than that, since the Bible doesn’t tell us more?

306

Ok @Bruce_Leiter sir,

Controversial
The Filioque controversy centered on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and tje Son is not emrely a dispute over single phrase but a clash of theological visions etc.
First of all lets talk abt The Monarchy of the Father vs Trinitarian unity
The East, rooted in Cappadocian Fathers upholds the monarchia of the Father as the unoriginate source of the Trinity. The Father begets the Son by generation and Spirates the Spirit by procession ensuring a single cause of divinity. Adding “and the Son” to the creed’s statement risk a dual causation, potentially subordinating the Spirit or blurring the hypostatic distinctions. This could imply a dyarchy undermining the Father’s unique role as Fount of Divinity.
The West, influenced by Augustine’s De Trinitate, emphasizes the unity of divine essence. The Filiqoue affirms that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son as a single principle, highlighting the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and the Spirit as the bond of love between them. This was partly a response to Arianism, which denied the Son’s full divinity. However the East sees this as a cataphatic overreach, imposing rationalistic categories on the ineffable Trinity, contrary to the East’s apophatic restraint.
Canonical Violations
The Nicene-Constantinopole Creed ratified by an ecumenical council declares “who proceeds from the Father”. The East holds than only an ecumenical council can alter this boundary of Faith. The West’s unilateral addition of the Filioque first in Spain and later in ROme, is seen as a breach of the conciliarity, the collegial authority of the Church. The Third Canon of Constantinopole and the decrees of Ephesus forbid changes to the Creed without universal consent, making the Filioque a canonical affront.
3. Cultural and Ecclesiological Divide
The divide reflects deeper differences in theological method and Church governance. The East’s mystical, apophatic approach contrasts the West’s scholastic, juridical tendency. The growing centralization of papal authority in the West clashed with the East’s synodal mode, where bishops share authority. The Filioque became a symbol of Rome’s perceived overreach, exacerbating tensions that culminated in the Great Schism.
U may ask me Why the Trinity’s mysterious relations caused such divisions?
The Trinity is not a peripheral doctrine but the heart of Christian ontology, defining God’s being and humanity’s salvation. A misalignment in understanding the Spirit’s procession risks distorting the role of Father, Son and Spirit in creation, salvation and sanctification.
*Orthodox:
The East distinguishes the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and His temporal mission through the Son. St.John of Damacus clarifies it the best as “The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is sent through the Son” (@Bruce_Leiter, did u mean this, be careful with the wordings)
The Filioque conflates these applying an economic role to the eternal theologia.
West:
The West drawing in Augustine, argues that the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son reflects their shared essence. The Latin term procedit (proceeds) is broader than ekporeuetai, encompassing both eternal origin and temporal mission. However the East isees this as linguistic imprecision that risks theological error.
See how important a language and its meaning is.
Lets go to John 15:26-27, especially verse 27
Verse 26:
Greek (original):ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ Παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται
English (RSV): But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me
Verse 27 has no problem
On John 15:26
Both East and West agree that the Spirit is sent by the Son from the Father in the economy of salvation. The Spirit’s role as the “Spirit of Truth” who bears witness to Christ is undisputed.
Now comes how important the language is (@Johann be with me here)
The phrase is
ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται
meaning:
who proceeds from the Father
Now, @Bruce_Leiter, here comes the important part where the original language is important.
The East interprets ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai, proceeds) as the Spirit’s eternal, hypostatic origin from The Father alone
The West extends to include procedit (proceeds) but the problem is procedit has broader meaning. It includes the Son, citing the Son’s sending as evidence of His role in the Spirit’s procession. This reflects a difference in distinguishing eternal relations from temporal mission.