I’m afraid that my lack of Latin and your explanation lead me to assume that the whole controversy and schism hinge on politics between East and West. I think that it is hair-splitting akin to the Middle Ages’ scholasticism’s questions about how many angels can balance on the head of a pin.
Hi,
Why does this matter?
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.
The Father sent the Holy Spirit.
They both sent the Holy Spirit.
( Remember, "I and My Father are one " )
And to split the whole church over such a infinitesimally small issue just makes no sense to me.
The Bible says what it says.
Sometimes I think theology is the devil’s playground.
Blessings
“When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me." (Jn. 15:26)
Now, regarding that scene, in a prior post I’ve shown what Jesus to the apostles in full, but what the Evangelist did write is still true, and it includes the Son, if one considers the following verses, among others, that show the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. Remember: there’s more than one way to say something.
I’ll start slow.
“I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30)
“the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (Jn. 10:38)
Since the Holy Spirit (Love) proceeds from the Father, and the Father and the Son are one, then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well.
A good question from @Bruce_Leiter
- Heresy and clarity
The early church faced challenfes like Arianism (denying the Son’s divinity) and Pneumatomachianism (denying the Spirit’s divinity). The Nicene Creed and subsequent councils clarify the Trinity’s relations to counter these errors. The East sees the Filioque as introducing new risks like subordinating the Spirit, necessitating a precise definition. - Ecclesial Unity
The Creed is a symbol of unity. Altering it unilaterally, as the West did, fractured the Church’s koinōnia. The East insists on conciliar agreement to maintain the fullness of the Church.
Mystery vs Definition
The East’s apophatic approach embraces the Trinity’s mystery, cautioning against overdefining what Scripture leaves implicit. The West’s cataphatic tendency seeks to clarify relations for doctrinal precision, but risks speculative overreach.
I’ll say it slow.
You are conflating ontological unity with personal procession, and the verbs you’re leaning on don’t support your conclusion.
Let’s examine the first claim:
John 10:30 - “I and the Father are one” (ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν).
The verb is ἐσμεν (esmen) — first person plural of “to be” (εἰμί), not a verb of action or procession. It indicates shared essence, not causal origin. The neuter “ἕν” (hen), not the masculine “εἷς” (heis), proves Jesus is not claiming that He and the Father are the same person, but that they are united in essence, one in nature, not one in personal operation or identity. This verse asserts consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιος), not pneumatological origin.
John 10:38 — “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί).
The verbs are ἐστίν (estin, “is”) and εἰμί (eimi, “I am”)—again, ontological verbs of being, not verbs of procession or sending. This verse describes mutual indwelling (περιχώρησις), not processional causality. No verb of origination or issuance is used.
Now compare with the relevant pneumatological text:
John 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.”
Let’s break down the verbs:
– ἔλθῃ (elthē, “comes”) — aorist subjunctive active, used of the Spirit’s arrival in time.
– πέμψω (pempsō, “I will send”) — future active indicative from πέμπω, referring to mission, not eternal generation.
– ἐκπορεύεται (ekporeuetai, “proceeds”) — present middle indicative of ἐκπορεύομαι, which always refers to eternal origin, not temporal sending.
– μαρτυρήσει (martyrēsei, “he will bear witness”) — future active indicative from μαρτυρέω, describing His role in the world, not His origin.
Crucially, the verb ἐκπορεύεται is singular and only used in the New Testament of the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession — and it is used only of the Father as the source: “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father”.
The Son sends the Spirit (πέμπω), but the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father. These are distinct verbs and categories. To merge the sending (πέμπω) with the procession (ἐκπορεύομαι) is to blur Scripture’s own distinctions and to override the verbs that the Holy Spirit inspired John to use.
Nowhere does Scripture say or imply that the Spirit ἐκπορεύεται from the Son. Scripture is precise; theology must not be sloppy where revelation is surgical.
Moreover, if you turn to the creedal and patristic use of the term:
– The Nicene Creed (325) originally states: “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον” — “who proceeds from the Father.”
– Gregory of Nazianzus writes in Oration 31.8: “The Spirit proceeds (προϊέναι) from the Father,” and says clearly, “Do not venture to speak of a third origin.”
– Athanasius declares the Spirit is from the Father, not by begetting like the Son, but by procession.
– The Council of Constantinople (381) reaffirmed: “the Holy Spirit… proceeds from the Father” — again, no dual origin.
The verb in the Greek Fathers, whether ἐκπορεύομαι or προϊέναι, never describes the Spirit as proceeding from the Son in origin. Any Western insertion of “Filioque” into the creed redefines this verb, introducing theological confusion that the East has never accepted.
To claim, “Since the Father and Son are one, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then He must also proceed from the Son,” is a syllogism based not on Scripture but on imported logic. Christ never says the Spirit ἐκπορεύεται from Himself. That would be an eternal act, not a temporal mission, and Scripture never uses the procession verb in relation to the Son.
Let the verbs speak:
– The Father sends (πέμπει, John 14:26).
– The Son sends (πέμπω, John 15:26), from the Father.
– The Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται, John 15:26), from the Father alone.
– The Spirit bears witness (μαρτυρεῖ), glorifies (δοξάσει), and takes (λήμψεται) from the Son (John 16:14)—but He does not proceed from Him.
So your chain of logic falls apart under close scriptural and grammatical scrutiny. The verbs matter. And they do not permit your conclusion.
Thanks
J.
1 Like
I think that John Calvin’s rule was correct, “Go as far as the Bible goes; then, stop.”
@Bruce_Leiter
Sadly, Calvinism doesn’t cope up with this, i got to know ur an author too, amazing.
Calvin’s rule presupposes that Scripture is self-sufficien,t requiring no interpretive framework beyond itself. The Orthodox counter that Scripture is inseparable from the tradition, the living transmission of the faith “delievered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). The Apostle Paul commands in 2 Thess 2:15 to stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught. This paradosis includes not only the written Scriptures but also the oral teachings, liturgical practices and conciliar decrees of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, which we Call as Spirit of Truth, Jn 15:26.
Again, i think u don’t know about this, @Bruce_Leiter, so here i give u my help.
The Filioque, asserting that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and The Son, parallels Calvin’s rationalistic approach to divine mysteries which his rule exemplifies. The Orthodox upholds Spirit’s procession from the Father alone as per John 15:26.
@Bruce_Leiter, did u know about this
Calvin in Institues (Book I ch13) affirms the Filioque, viewing the Spirit as proceeding from both the Father an Son to effect salvation in the elect. (Did Calvin go back on his rules here? U shld ask this question..) This aligns with his deterministic soteriology where the Spirit’s role is subordinated to divine decrees. The Orthodox, affirm the Spirit proceeds from The Father and is sent through the Son
Just as @Bruce_Leiter said in a prev post
This is the Orthodox view, ur absolutely correct but Calvinism is the wrong label
But John Calvin doesnt agree with you.
Calvin’s maxim reflects a cataphatic rationalism, presuming Scripture’s meaning is self-evident. THe Orthodox embraces negative theology, acknowledging of God’s being. The Filioque, like Calvin’s predestinarian system, overdefines divine mysteries which ik @Bruce_Leiter, u are against overdefining divine mysteries, but Calvin was not like that. Gregory of Nyssa warns against speculating on the Trinity’s internal relations, as does Photius in Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit against the Filioque.
When you cite John Calvin, where in the Institutes are you referring to (volume and page number)? I don’t think you can just state something without support.
You are right to say that the Orthodox view includes tradition in addition to the Bible, @Samuel_23. That’s where John Calvin and I are primarily different from your view. God inspired the Bible to be our basis for the faith, not the fathers and councils.
Our Calvinistic creeds must always be measured against the Scriptures. In fact, one of them, the Belgic Confession, has been changed because part of it has been found to be unbiblical. How have the fathers and councils been changed when they were wrong or when they added to the Bible?
By the way, you can find most of my books at growingtoknowGod.org, under “Spiritual Resources.” In addition, a production company is considering two of my historical novels, which aren’t described on my website, for TV series.
1 Like
@Bruce_Leiter
Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin Book 1, Chapter 13, section 18
Here it is
Book1, Chapter 13, section 18
18. I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different. And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there can be no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also testifies (1 Pet. 1:21), that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.
And i went to this link u gave
Truly you worked hard for this site..amazing
And congrats for:
Peace
Sam
I wanted to ask two questions which are confusing for me:
@Johann, @Soul, @SincereSeeker,@Bruce_Leiter, @TheologyNerd ur help will be precious to me..
- Given the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms homoousios (same essence) and perichoresis (mutual indwelling), do the three Persons of the Trinity possess distinct consciousness or self-awareness, in the same way they possess distinct personhood? If so, how is this distinction preserved without dividing the divine essence?
- Additionally, how should we understand the eternal generation of the Son (‘the Father begets the Son’) and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit (‘the Father spirates the Spirit’) in a way that maintains equality within the Trinity, without falling into subordinationism?
@Samuel_23
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, rightly articulated, confesses μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, one essence, three hypostases. That is, the ousia of God is indivisible, simple, eternal, fully possessed by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet each hypostasis, Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus-is personally distinct, not by essence but by eternal relational origin: the Father is ἀγέννητος (unbegotten), the Son is γεννητός (eternally begotten), and the Spirit is ἐκπορευτός (eternally proceeding).
So, do the three possess distinct consciousness? If by “consciousness” one means self-awareness, the Fathers affirm that each Person knows Himself and the others as divine. The Son says in John 17.5, “Glorify me with the glory I had with You before the world was,” which implies an eternal self-awareness in relational distinction. Likewise, the Spirit ἐραυνᾷ πάντα (searches all things), even the βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ (depths of God), 1 Corinthians 2.10. This is not an impersonal function, but hypostatic cognition. Each Person speaks, loves, glorifies, sends, and receives, their actions are personal. The Cappadocians, especially Gregory of Nyssa, stressed perichōrēsis as the mutual indwelling without loss of identity. Thus, the Persons are not masks (πρόσωπα) of a single “mind,” as in modalismus, nor three competing centers, as in tritheism, but three αὐτοτελεῖς ὑποστάσεις, fully-realized persons, in one shared divine ousia.
This relational distinction does not divide the essence. The Fathers were clear: the Trinity is not a composite being. There is μία ἐνέργεια (one energy) and μία θέλησις (one will), precisely because the divine ousia is indivisible. The hypostatic idiomata, begetting, being begotten, and procession, do not introduce inequality but order. The Son is eternally γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός (begotten of the Father), not made, not inferior, not posterior. Athanasius wrote, ὁ Υἱὸς ἔστιν ἴσος τῷ Πατρί, the Son is equal to the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, John 15.26), and this is an eternal relation, not a temporal one. As Basil affirmed, the Spirit is “of God” as truly as the Son is “of God.”
The Latin tradition, echoing the East, speaks of generatio aeterna and processio aeterna. These are not acts in time, nor hierarchical decrees, but eternal necessities rooted in the identity of each Person. The Father is fons divinitatis, the source of divinity, not in superiority of nature, but in personal origin. Thomas Aquinas rightly clarified that this does not entail subordination in natura, only order in relatio. Subordinationism is heresy precisely because it divides the essence, while orthodox taxis (order) preserves unity and harmony within the perichoretic communion of divine life.
In sum, the three hypostases do possess distinct self-awareness, not as autonomous beings but as eternally coexistent Persons in communion. This distinction is safeguarded by perichoresis, whereby each Person wholly indwells the other without confusion or fusion. The eternal begetting and procession preserve relational identity while affirming full equality. As the Symbolum Athanasianum confesses, Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae sunt et coaequales, in this Trinity, nothing is before or after, nothing greater or lesser, but the whole three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal.
To deny this is to either collapse the Trinity into modalismus, or divide God into three beings. To affirm it is to worship the one Deus Trinitas, revealed through the cross, where the Son offered Himself to the Father through the eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9.14), each Person acting distinctly yet inseparably for our redemption.
J.
-
God is a mystery in that way. He is always worthy of our praise. Read the whole Gospel of John for an answer to your question. Jesus speaks about his Father and the Holy Spirit as Persons.
-
I can speak to your second question more definitively. The KJV speaks about Jesus being the only “begotten” Son, but that translation made one of their few mistakes in translating by using “begotten.” There are two almost-identical participles, one meaning “born” or “begotten.” The other one means “existent” or “unique.” KJV obviously thought it was the first one, while modern translations more accurately use the second, “one and only.” I think that Jesus’ Sonship began at his birth and continues forever. I think that we need to measure all creeds and confessions against the Bible, where we must start and end our study.
2 Likes
@Johann thanks for the answer, truly u have written top-level theology, i see where ur coming from, a strong theological background, i want to share mine too. Reading urs motivates me.
Your affirmation that each hypostasis posses distinct self-awareness are what i learnt in Orthodox theology, insistence on fully-realized person. As Gregory of Nyssa teaches that distinction lies in unique properties, the Father’s unbegottenness, the Son’s eternal begetting and the Spirit’s eternal procession. These are not mere relations but ontologically constitutive, ensuring each Person’s irreducible particularly within the one nature.
The Orthodox tradition, pace Basil the Great, holds that the divine intellect is singular yet hypostasis enacts personal characterstics in communion. The Son’s prayer in John 17:5 reveals a hypostatic self-awareness as u said, is eternally relational, not autonomous. Likewise the Spirit searches the depths of God manifest a personal cognition inseparable from one divine energy. THis aligns with ur rejection of a composite deity, for perichoresis ensures that each Person’s self-awareness is fully interpenetrated by others, preserving the simplicity of the divine essence.
As @Bruce_Leiter said, let mysteries be mysteries, Orthodox confesses that the mode of divine consciousness transcends human analogy. The three hypostases are not three souls or separate centers of consciousness, as this risks tritheism. Rather, their distinctiveness is a mystery of relational ontology, where the one essence is wholly possessed by each, yet expressed through personal properties. As St. John of Damascus writes in De Fide Orthodoxa that the Trinity is undivided in division, a paradox that guards against the dividing the divine nature.
On Eternal Generation and Procession
Your articulation of Son’s eternal begetting and the Spirit’s eternal procession is impeccably Orthodox. The Father as fons divinitatis (source of divinity) is not a hierarchical primary, but a relational principle..amazing, textbook Orthodox theology, @Johann. The Son is begotten, not made as the Nicene Creed confesses, co-eternal and cosubstantial with the Father. The Spirit, proceeding from the Father is equally divine, sharing the same eternal nature.
Orthodox theology, contra Western Filioque, insits on the monarchy of the Father as sole cause of divinity. The Spirit’s procession is from the Father alone preserving the hypostatic properties of each Person. As Photius the Great argues in Mystagogia thats the Filioque risks conflating the Son’s begetting with the Spirit’s procession, undermining the distinct properties. Yet what u have said, is strictly Easter Tradition and its theology, u have avoided this huge error..amazing, beautiful theology.
The equality of the hypostases is further safeguarded by the doctrine of divine energies. As St.Gregory Palamas elucidates the one divine essence is inaccessible but the Trinity’s uncreated energies manifest their communion ad extra. The Father’s begetting, the Son’s being begotten, and the Spirit’s proceeding are eternal acts, within the divine life, not temporal and causal hierarchies. This ensures as you note that “nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus” (@Johann this was fire, this is perfect, 100/100) i see where u are going, u just said “nothing before or after, nothing greater or lesser” per the Athanasianum.
As @Bruce_Leiter says the Trinity is a mystery worthy of praise, is truly deep.
The Son’s eternal begetting, and Spirit’s eternal procession, are relational, not temporal acts within the one divine essence as @Johann makes it clear…
As co-equal hypostases, they share homoousios, avoiding subordinationism, through perichoretic union.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face:
now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
The Apostle Paul
-
The three Persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—possess distinct personhood, which includes distinct self-awareness and will, yet without dividing the divine essence. This is not tritheism because they are not three beings but one Being. The Church Fathers used the term perichoresis to describe their mutual indwelling: the Persons are in one another without confusion, division, or separation (John 14:10-11). The divine will is one, shared in perfect unity by all three Persons, though each acts according to His personal mode of relation within that one will.
-
The eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit express relational distinctions, not ontological inferiority. “Begetting” and “procession” are terms of origin, not hierarchy. The Son is begotten—not made—from the Father (John 1:18), and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, in the Western tradition, through the Son, John 15:26). These are eternal realities, not temporal events, and they maintain equality by preserving consubstantiality—homoousios. There is no before or after in eternity, and thus no subordination in essence or divinity.
This is the mystery: distinction without division, order without inequality, unity without fusion. It’s not a logic puzzle to be solved—it’s revealed truth to be worshipped.
1 Like
I understand where you’re coming from, @KPuff.
We could master every theological concept and still not exhaust the depths of Scripture, for the Word of God is living and active. But what matters more than accumulating knowledge is a life surrendered to Him, yielded to His imperatives, walking daily in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, and rooted in a living, personal relationship with Christ Jesus.
J.
1 Like
Thats @Johann, very true. The depth is too much for any human to handle.
Lets mysteries be mysteries like @Bruce_Leiter said, we shld Praise God forever.
We will only go till where the Scripture has revealed. Thats the aim of Orthodox theology.
Well said, @SincereSeeker, i love the way u put forward these concepts.
I aspire to write like u one day, its a talent for sure
Peace
Sam
That’s true, @Samuel_23 the depth of God is beyond the reach of unaided reason. But let me add this with trembling clarity: pursuing knowledge without submission is dangerous.
Scripture warns us that “scientia inflat, caritas vero ædificat”-“knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthiis 8:1). The aim of theology is never mere accumulation, but transformation. The Pharisees searched the Scriptures daily, yet Christ said, “You refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Ioannes 5:39–40).
We are not called to become curators of divine data, but discipuli crucis, disciples of the cross. Paul did not boast in his revelations or mastery of the Law, but said, “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthiis 2:2). Even demons have correct theology, “You believe God is one? You do well. Even the demons believe, and tremble!” (Iacobi 2:19).
Orthodox theology rightly aims to go no further than what is revealed, but let us not stop at reverent boundaries while neglecting the weightier matter, a heart pierced by the Word, a mind renewed by the Spirit, and a life laid down in obedience.
As Hosea warns, “My people perish for lack of knowledge,” but that verse continues: “because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being priest to me” (Osee 4:6). Knowledge without obedience becomes rebellion; mystery without worship becomes pride.
So yes, let mysteries be mysteries. But let theology be worship. Let knowledge bow before the crucified and risen Christ, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossensibus 2:3).
Peace.
J.