r

W7J 74 (2012) 257-76

AN EXAMINATION OF HOMOTIMJA
IN ST BASIL THE GREAT’S ON THE HOLY SPIRIT,
AND CONTEMPORARY IMPLICATIONS

JOJINL WJAMLS

f “the nature and being of God is the foundation of all tine ieligion and holy
ieligious woiship in the world,’” then the study of the peison and work of the
Holy Spu it is always paramount Howevei, given that contemporary evangelical
ism divides itself along Chansmatic and non-Chansrnatic lines (whatever those
tides mean), that it tends towards disagreement and confusion in this area, and
that dialogue is often chaiacterized by oveireacuon countered with oveireac
non, such study is perhaps pai ticulaily umely
Feelings inn high piecisely because, asJohn Owen states above, what we be
lieve about the Spu it affects the shape of our corporate worship, about which we
all care a great deal In reaction to a pci ceived imbalance within sections of the
Charismatic movement, we can be quick to ieassert Christ-centered worship
The Spint is “shy” and “self-effacing,” we say. He isa “sign-post” to the Son, glon
fled only as we bring glory to the Son to whom he points Such was the zeal of my
local University Christian Union that it banned the song “Praise God Fiom
Whom All Blessings Flow” with the line “bnng glory to the Spint,” in order to
avoid the mistake of giving the Spirit undue attention
Peihaps it is bettei to be ovei cautious than nsk losing sight of oui Savior I
want to suggest, howevei, that lai fiom being a position of safety, this attitude
carries many dangei-s of its own The equal honoi of the Holy Spint is a necessary
outwoi king of oui doctrine of the Trinity If we neglect the Spu it we will divide
the Godhead, and find ourselves teetenng on the piecipice of polytheism Such
a move ci odes the very gospel we seek to protect, with significant theological
and pastoral implications, as the spiritual bond that unites us to Christ begins to
come unstuck
The contemporary challenge highlights how historically anemic we have
become, and how desperately we need to uneai th our confessional hentage Fai
from being new, the issue was addressed comprehensively by St Basil the Great
in the fourth centui-y
Basil’s aigument for the equal honoi of the Spun contnbuted to the Constan
tinopolitan revision of the Nicene Ci eed, and this histoncal context provides a

John I WJames is pastor of Hehi-; Chapel, NortliJield, hi mi;igharn, UK, arid is a g’oditah of Oak Full
Theological College. I ondon
John Ovcn, IIieIIoli h/iint (~ o~ 3 of Ike i?inlu ofJohn Owen, 16 ,ols London Banner ofTrudi,

t4 1965)64
258 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
suitable lens for a contemporary critique. This article will begin with the theo
logical developments of the fourth century, examine systematically the validity of
the equal honor of the Holy Spirit, and finally draw some implications for our
contemporary evangelical constituency.
I. Athanasius, Basil, and the Developments ofNicaea-Constantinople
In AD. 325 the council of Nicaea defended orthodox Christianity against the
Asian heresy of ontological subordination within the Godhead through the
formulation of a creed that asserted that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.
However, the term consubstantial (hornoonsios) remained ambiguous, particu
larly as the final anathema used the terms hypostasis and ousia as apparent syn
onyms.2 Also notably, belief in the Holy Spirit was asserted without clarification
of his identity or relation to the Godhead. The result was that though traditional
Arianism had been addressed directly, the door was open for Sabellianism on
the one hand, in which hyposlasis trulywould be equated with ousia~ and a second
wave of Arianism on the other, in which ontological subordination would now
also be applied to the Spirit.3
Our concern is primarily with this second heresy: the ontological subordina
tion of the Spirit, fought against by both Athanasius and Basil after Nicaea in
325. This first section of the article will consider their arguments for the equal
nature and honor of the Spiritwith the Father and the Son, and their contribution
to the clarification of Nicaea in AD. 381.
1. Athanasius s Foundational Work
Athanasius wrote to Serapion between 358 and 360 concerning the Holy Spirit.4
Serapion sought advice on how to respond to believers who acknowledged the
2 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: in Sthptusz History, Theology, and Won/zip (Phillipsburg, NJ.:
Presbyteiian & Reformed, 2004), 116. Letham notes that the terms ousia and Izypostasis were often
used interchangeably in Greek philosophy and that, as a result of this lack ofsemantic clarity, there
was a great deal of ambiguity and miscommunication for decades after Nicaea. The terms arc only
used together in the anathema at the end of the creed, and the term hypostasis does not appear in
the main body of the creed itself. Because of this, the tents were taken as synonymous, though that
may not have been the council’s intention.
Marcellus ofAncyra, though a prominent defender of Nicaea, was also strongly associated with
a species ofSabellianism. See Franz DSnzl, A BriefHistory oftheDoct,ineof the Trinity in theEarly Chnrrh
(London: T&T Clark, 2007), 65~69. Though they would not have considered themselves as Arian,
we shall show that the Tropic/i and Pneurnatomachoi were considered Asian by both Athanasius and
Basil. Basil himself notes, “On the one hand are those who confuse the Persons and revert tojuda
ism; on the other are those who oppose the natures, and are swept away into Greek polytheism’
(Basil, On the Holy Spirit [trans. David Anderson; New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 19811,
30.77). Hereafter references to this work will appear in the text.
Athanasius, The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit (to Saint Serapioni (trans.
non ch i.,.-i.’,.,.’ .a,...,,,..k 1n~fl 10 n,.... r, r.,.-,,,.,-.,l,;~.,.,,.-t..,,;n
THE SPIRIT IN ST. BASIL 259
deity of the Son, but not the SpiritP These letters constitute “the first extensive
treatment of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church,”° and two important
lines of argument can be summarized.
Firstly, Athanasius asserts the Spirit’s divinity by establishing his economic
activity within the context of God’s inseparable operation.7 In revelation, the
Spirit can only be known through the Son, but we can only see the Son by being
enlightened by the Spirit (Ep. Serap. 1.19) .~ Therefore, “only he who is of Cod...
and consubstantial with him can thus impart knowledge of God in himself.”° In
creation, “the Father creates all things through the Word in the Spirit,” and so
also in recreation (Ep. Serap. 3.5) .‘° The Spirit receives his mission as “sanctifier”
from the Son. He does not himself partake in sanctification, but is instead par-
taken (lIp. Strap. 1.23). And so, “that which joins creation to the Word cannot
belong to the creatures” (Ep. Strap. 1.25). The argument runs both ways, with
soteriological implications.” “As the grace given is from the Father through
the Son, so we can have no communion in the gift except in the Holy Spirit”
(Ep. Scrap. 1.30). The Spirit must necessarily be the uncreated creator working
inseparably with the Son and the Father, in the one mission of God.
Secondly, Athanasius moves from the one divine mission to mutual indwelling
and divine unity, asserting the Spirit’s indivisibility from, and thus ontological
equality with, the Father and the Son. He establishes first the Son’s mission from
the Father, and then, because “the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as
the Son to the Father” (Ep. Scrap. 1.21), he moves to establish the Spirit’s mission
from the Son and shows that “what the Spirit is in his mission from the Son he is
antecedently and eternally in himself in ~ He speaks of a perichoresis
within the Godhead.’3 “When the Spirit is in us, the Word also, who gives the
Spirit is in us, and in the Word is the Father” (Ep. Serap. 1.30; 3.6), moving from
activity to nature. “There is from the Father one grace which is fulfilled through
the Son in the Holy Spirit; and there is one divine nature, and one God ‘who is
over all and through all and in all” (lIp. Scrap. 1.14). The Spirit then is united
with the Father and the Son in a Trinity that is necessarily “all creative ... consis
tent and in nature indivisible, and in activity. . . one” (Ep. Strap. 1.28).
lvorJ. Davidson, .4 Public Faith: Ram Consta,,ti,,e to the Medieval World, AD. 312—600 (Oxford;
Monarch Books, 2005), 87.
Letham, 7’/se Holy Trinity, 141.
Concerning inseparable operation, Ayres suggests that this “nsay well represent the earliest
clear statement of the doctrine applied to all three persons” (Lewis Ayres, N/coca and Its Legacy: An
App,ouch to FourtkCentsoy Trinitarian Theology [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20041,214).
Here we should note thatAthanasius is able to keep his Trinitarian theologr christocentric. As
the only image of the Father, the Son remains the focus of Athanasius’s gaze, and becomes the
revealer of his doctrine of the Spirit.
Tlsomas F. Torrance, Theology in Recorcctniction (London: SCM Press, 1965), 215.
~ See also ibid., 215-16.
“Alvyn Pettersen, Athanasius (London: Geoffrey Clsapman, 1995), 189.
IC Torrance, Theology i,tReco,ntructioa, 215-16. SeeAtlsanasius, Ep. Serap. 2.1—3.7.
260 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
Athanasius understands that the Spirit’s economic work is his mission from the
Son: a mission that in turn is given by the Father. He builds his Pneumatology on
his Christology asserted at Nicaea.’1 “If the Son is not a creature because he does
not belong to the many, but is one as the Father is one; then the Spirit likewise”
(Ep. Scrap. 3.3). For Athanasius, “our experience of being created and sustained,
of being saved and sanctified begins and ends in a relationship with the One
who is Father, is Son and is Spirit.”5 With an inseparable, indivisible Godhead he
is then ftee to apply hornoousia to the Spirit.’6 The economic inseparable opera
tion is the revelation of an immanent ontological equality. The Spirit must share
equal divinity for he is the third person in the shared mission of God.
2. Basil’sDeoelopinent ofAthanasius
Basil addresses the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in an early work against the Neo
Ariais heretic Eunomius written in 364, and in a number of letters, but his unique
contnbution is established finally in his work On the Holy Spirit, written between
373 and 375,’? Though detailed engagement with Athanasius’s theology has not
been demonstrated, Basil evidently builds on the foundation Athanasius laid.
It is likely that Basil is writing in opposition to his old mentor Eustathius,
Bishop of Sebaste.’8 There is no specific internal evidence, but he uses the label
Pneumatomachoi both in the book, and for Eustathius (Spirit 11.27; 21.52)i°
Basil’s understanding of the pneurnatomachian argument, reconstructed from
his response, turns thus: the Spirit must not be ranked with the Father or the
Son, because “he is different in nature and inferior in dignity to them” (Spirit
6.18; 10.24). The difference of nature divides the Spirit from the Father and
the Son (Spirit 10.25)10 As a result, though his status may be elevated, the Spirit
is not divine, but a creature (Spirit 3.5; 20.51; 2456)11 Because he cannot be
ranked with the Father and the Son he must not be honored with the Father
and the SonY2
Yves Conga; I&/ievein i/ic Holy SpOil (3 vols.; NewYork: Seabur~ 1983), 3:25.
~ Pettersen, Aihanasius, 141-42.
IS Letham, The Hoty Split, 144; Dunzl, A Brief His/wy, 120.
‘~ PatdJ. Fedwick, “AChronologyofthe Life and Works of Basil of Caesarea,” in JiasitofCaesarea:
Chit/ian, Humanist, Asic/it: A Sixleen-Hund,rdi/, Annivexcaiy Symposium (Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1981), 10, 16-17. Letters of particular interest include 8, and 189 addressed to
Eustathit,s (though authorship is disputed for different reasons in both cases). 189 is mitten either
by Gregory of Nyssa or Basil. Most early scholars consider Basil the author, and as itwas likely to have
been written around 374—375 it fits well with the ;~~idng of his work On the HotySpiiit. See Basil, ‘Letter
189:To Eustathius, the court Physician,’ in Sointliasilthec,rat:Leitns, Votume2O8ri-368) (trans. Sister
I
Agnes Glare Way; FC 28; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University ofAmerica Press, 1955), 25.
~ AnthonyMeredith, The Cappadocians (NewYork: StVladimir’s SerninaryPress, 1995), 31.
9See MarkJ. Larson, ‘A Re-Examination of Dc Spiritu Sancto: SaintBasil’s Bold Defense of the
Spirit’s Deity,” 5115719 (2001): 76,
20See also Basil, ‘Letter 189,” 27-28.
II See also ibid., 28.
22 Th,~’,ci,, p nr en,,,’ hnnnr (J,nn,aiiss,bO for the Sniril was the nresenlinsi issue for Basil. He re—
THE SPIRIT IN ST. BASIL 261
Foundational to the work is Basil’s insistence on a doxological formula that
ascribes equal honor to the Spirit with the Father and the Son. 1-le offers “sub
stantially the same teaching as Athanasius,’ss with a defense of the Holy Spirit
founded on Nicene Christology (Spirit 6—8).Just as Athanasius first establishes
hornoonsia for Father and Son as the basis for the equal nature of the Spit-it, Basil
first establishes hornotim~a for Father and Son (cbs. 6—8) as the basis for the equal
honor of the Spirit. The inseparable operation of the divine persons in the one
divine mission is again the key to understanding their unity and equality
The main body of On the Holy Spirit takes the form of three theses with regards
to the Spirit, intetjected with refutations of anticipated objections from the
Pneumatomachoi. The first thesis asserts the Spirit’s ontological equality with the
Father and the Son. The second asserts the Spirit’s inseparable operation with
the Father and the Son in the economy of creation and salvation. The third
asserts the Spirit’s equal honor with the Father and the Son, defending Basil’s
doxological formula.24
(1) The Spirit’s on tological equality with the Fat/icr and the Son. Basil considers the
Spirit’s titles (Spirit 9.22)25 He is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth, the right
Spirit, willing Spirit, and Holy Spirit. InJohn 15:26, God is described as Spirit.
The word implies one unlike a creature, but sharing the attributes of God:
immutable, omnipotent, holy, eternal, unapproachable, simple. The Spirit is a
giver but is never depleted, and by him we are reconciled to God and become
like him (Spirit9.22, 23).
The baptismal formula of Fathes; Son, and Spirit in Matt 28:19 “testifies to
their union and fellowship,” and that “the Holy Spirit is to be ranked with the
Father” (Spirit 10.24.25).26 It declares that our salvation is all of God: Father, Son
and Holy Spirit working togethes: So, “if someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in
the Father and the Son is made useless” (Spirit 11.27) ~ The Spirit is not included
because God employed his help, like an angel, but because he is “organically
united with God” (Spirit 13.30).
Both 1 Cor 12:3 and Matt 28:19 are fundamental to Basil’s understanding of
the Spirit. “The Spirit is divine, because he epistemically unites the baptized to
ti’e Father through the Son.”28 The Spirit’s own testimony is that “the Holy Spirit
~
with the form, ‘Glory to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit” (Basil, Spirit 1.3). It is
this that provoked the opposition frons the Pneumatomaehoi.
25 Torrance, Y’heologj in J?econstrnction, 219.
The basic structure of”thesis” and “reft,tsttion” is taken li-o,n I-Iildebrar,d, but the summarized
argurnentdifferssignificandy, Steplsen M. Hildebrand, The T,ioitoriau Theoto~ ofBasil of Caesa,ra:A
Synthesis of Greth7’hooght and Bibtieat Yin/h (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University ofAmerica Press,
2007), 181-83.
25See also Basil, ‘Letter 189,” 30,
20 See also Basil, “Letter 189,” 28. Here Basil notes, “The Lord, in handing over the saving faith
to those who are being instn,cted in 1-lis doctrine,joins the Holy Spint with the Father and Use Son.”
27 Here Basil quotes 1 Cor 12:3, “No one cats say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit,” and
John 1:18, “No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, wlsn is in the bosom of the Father,
12-, ~
262 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
is indivisibly and inseparablyjoined to the Father and the Son” (Spirit 16.37).
Though Basil does not use the word homoousios, he affirms that because of the
Spirit’s titles, attributes, work, and testimony, he must be ontologically equal with
the Father and the SonY~’
(2) The Spirit ~s inseparable operation with the Father and the Son in the economy of
creation and salvation. Basil demonstrates that the Spirit does Cod’s work. God is
present through the Spirit’s gifts, to sin against the Spirit is to sin against God,
and so, “in every operation, the Holy Spirit is indivisibly united with the Father
and the Son” (Spirit 16.37).~° Basil establishes the Spirit’s role in the creation of
angels as this distinguishes the Spirit’s creative identity from their creaturely
identity (Spirit 16.38). The Spirit’s work in salvation is traced through the OT, the
ministry ofJesus, the NT church, and the final day ofjudgment (Spirit 16.39-40).
Though operating inseparably in the divine mission, the persons are distinct the
Father is first cause, the Son is creator, and the Spirit is perfector (Spirit 15.38).
The Spirit is nota third of God, or a lesser part (Spirit 17.41). Numerical rank
ing does not imply ontological subordination (Spirit 17.42). Numbers are sym
bols of quantity not nature, but lest we think there might be three Gods, when
applied to the persons of the Trinity they indicate “the uniqueness of the persons,
while maintaining the unity of the Monarchy” (Spirit 18.44-45). Such unity is
described perichoretically, and so we talk of “one, one and one,” not “one, two
and three.” The Spirit “is not ranked with the plurality of creation, but is de
scribed in the singulai;” perfectly united with the Godhead, and sharing the
glory of God (Spirit 18.4546)?’
“Knowledge of any one of the persons of the Triad is at the same time knowl
edge of the other two.”32 Confessing the persons does not divide God or assert
subordination; the Spirit is not a slave, nor a freeman, but the master, with the
Father and the Son (Spirit 18.47; 19.50—20.51).
Basil establishes the immanent nature of Cod from his economic work.33 He
is convinced, as LaCugna notes, “the Spirit is what the Spirit does.”34 Through it
~ Though he does not use homoousiosin this work (a point for discussion later), he does, however,
assert it in Letter 189. He writes, “Identity of the operations indicates community of nature” (Basil,
“Letter 189,” 33).
~ See also Basil, “Letter 189,”29,31,32. Here Basil talks specifically of the Spirits ‘inseparability.”
~ Basil writes, “The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son; what the Father is, the Son
is likewise and vice.versa—such is the unity’ (Spidt 18.45).
32Joho McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumototogj: Studies in the Doctrine of’ the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1997), 97.
~3 So Basil writes, “It is very necessary for us to be guided in our investigation of the divine
nature by its operations: Accordingly, if we see that the operations of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit differ from each other, we will infer from the dissimilarity of tlse operations that
the natures which are producing them are different.. . . But, if we consider the operation of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to be one, differing or varying in no way at all, it is
necessary because of the identity of the operation for the oneness of the nature to be inferred”
(Basil, “Letter 189,” 31).
‘u,-, _,‘~‘--_-__ ,“--, ,--- .‘,-- ]‘,-,-- ‘-‘— -,‘—,---,-‘-‘--- ,,,‘- ,‘,—— ,,‘--
THE SPIRIT IN ST. BASIL 263
all are two strands: relational subordination with ontological equality: “the unity
of action of the one Cod, who acts always through Christ in the Spirit.”33 Some
have questioned whether identifying sanctification as the distinct role of the
Spirit economically shows adequately the role of the Spirit immanently, for
“He cannot be thought of as making the Father and Son holy.~ss But Basil argues
here for unity, not distinction. “Common activity demonstrates a commonessence.”37
The Pneumatomacl,oi are not Sabellian but are, despite themselves, Asian, and if
ontological equality can be affirmed on the basis of inseparable operation, then
subordinationism is banished.
(3) The Spiritc equal honor with the Father and the Son. Up to this point Basil has
simply fortified Athanasius’s argument, but here Basil advances: if we rightly
understand the Spirit economically, and so also immanently, “how can we be
afraid of giving the Spirit too much honor?” (Spirit 19.49).~~ The imperative
throughout is doxological, so where Athanasius asserts homoousia, Basil asserts
homotimia, The Spirit is rightly called “Lord” (Spirit 21.52) ?° He is unfathomable,
and only in our salvation can we contemplate him rightly, so “is there any limit to
the honor he deserves?” (Spirit 22.53). The form that honor should take is “the
recounting of His own wonders. . . . To describe His wonders gives Him the full
est glorification possible” (Spirit 23.54). And so Basil declares again the Spirit’s
unity with the Godhead and his inseparable operation in the divine mission and
asks, “Why should He be deprived of His glory?” (Spirit 24:55). If the Holy Spirit
cannot be divided from the Father and the Son in his nature or work, then he
“cannot be divided from the Father and the Son in worship. If’you remain outside
the Spirit, you cannot worship at all, and if you are in Him you cannot separate
Him from God” (Spirit 26.64).
Having established the relational subordination yet ontological equality of the
Spirit, Basil establishes the necessity of two doxologies to ascribe him honor.
“Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit” and “Glory to the Father
with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit” (Spirit 1.3; 25.60). “The preposition
in expresses the relationship between ourselves and the Spirit, while with pro
claims the communion of the Spirit with God” (Spirit 27.68). And so, “the Spirit
who makes possible the praise of God becomes an object of praise, worshipped
and glorified together with the Father and the Son.”4°
Ibid., t20.
I
35
~° Meredith, The Cappadocians, 105.
57Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legocy, 216; my italics.
~ See also Basil, “Letter 189,” 29. Here Basil notes, “All the concepts and terms proper to God
are equal to each other in honor, since they show no variation at all in regard to the designation of
the subject.” The footnote explains, “Since all the Persons are equal, all the terms applied to Them
are of equal honor.”
ii 39 Here Basil considers 2 Thess 3:5, “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and
to the steadfastness of Christ,’ and asserts that it must be the Spirit who is being referred to here
4 2~ ‘1 nrrl”
264 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
3. Is There Any Cause for Concern?
Some have argued that Basil falls short of asserting the full divinity of the 1-loly
Spirit because he does not describe the Spirit as homoonsios with the Father and
the Son.1’ Basil does seem more reticent than Athanasius, or Gregory Nazianzen,
to speak of such ~ He may have been trying to be faithful to the
language of Scripture, or strategic, attempting to hold the church together and
win over the PneumalomachoL43 Though it has been suggested that it reveals
Basil’s inconsistency, in the light of what was then achieved at Constantinople it
may show his wisdom.”
In any event, the charge against Basil may not even be substantiated. Basil
does say that we must not assert different essences for the different persons, that
the Spirit is “divine in nature,” and “organically united with God” (Spirit 13.30,
17.43, 23.54; my italics). Larson notes that Basil has no intention of holding
back, and that in arguing for the Spint as Lord, he regards his task complete.45
Though he avoids applying the term homoousios to the Spirit this should not be
seen as a failure to articulate the Spirit’s equalitywith the Godhead, his insepara
bility from the Father and the Son, and his SIll divinity.
4. The Outcome: Nicaea-Constantinoftle
Basil died in 379, two years before the Constantinopolitan council revised
the Nicene Creed;’° However, it is likely that Amphilochius, to whom Basil
wrote On the Holy Spirit, was present at the Council and represented his views.’7
Certainly when one considers the Niceno-Constantinople creed on the Holy
Spirit, it reads as a restatement of Basil’s conclusions, with homotimia in the
foreground, not ~ 1-laying considered Basil and the context of the
Pneumatomachoi, this is not a lesser assertion of the full divinity of the Holy
Spint, and by including a doxological imperative, may be regarded as a stronger
I ~° It is wo,’th noting that in the same century in the West, Flilary of Poitiers was doing exactly the
creed than 325’s formulation.
“~ Meredith, The Cappadocio~ts; 33.
42 Gregorywrites. “117,al, then? Is tIre Spirit God?cer,ainly. Well, ii,,’,,, is he co,ts,thste,nliat?Yes, ifhe
is God” (“The Fifth Theological Oration, Oration 31, On the 1-loty Spirit,” in 0,, God one? C/old [trans.
Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickha,n; NewYork: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 20021,123).
4~ Davidson, A P,thlic Faith, 88; Dun,], A 1J,iefHLcto~y, 120-21;Ayres, Mci-tea a,sdILcL.gacy, 216-17.
Hanson suggests Basil is inconsistent (see R. P. C. 1-Ianson, 77w Sea rrh for the CIs,istirn Doctrine
of Coil: Theririan contmoeny, 318—381 [Edinburgh: T&T clark, iossi, 668-69). Dunzl suggests Basil
is wise (see A B,iefHistoty. 121-22).
~ Larson, “A Re-Exa,nination of Dc Spirius Sancto,” 68, 70-71.
46 Fedwick, “A chronology of Basil,’ 19.
~ Larson, “A Re-Examination of Dc Spiritu Sancto,” 72.
THE SPIRIT IN ST. BASIL 265
5. Conclusion
Athanasius and Basil fight subordinationism by considering the Father-Son
and Son-Spirit relationships, and the mission of the Spirit from the Son. By estab
lishing that the Spint isjivm the Son and tile Son isfrnm the Father, they are able
to give content to the Bible’s perichoretic language:just as they arejiam, so they
are im”° For, “salvation history is ... the se~Prevelation of God.”5° The Spint’s rela
tional subordination and ontological equality exists immanently and is revealed
economically.5’ As a result, ‘You cannot know the Father and the Son without
knowing the Holy Spirit but further... God would not really be God without the
Holy Spirit.”a’ On that basis Athanasius asserts homoonsia, and Basil, assuming
homoonsia, asserts homotimia. We honor the Spirit rightly as we recognize, recount,
and worship him for his distinct activity in the one divine mission.55 The flow of
the argument is: action demonstrates essence, and on the basis of essence, honor
is asserted. It is a twofold doxology; we bring glory to the Father through the Son,
in the Spirit, and yet (to use the language of Nicaea-Constantinople) tile Spirit is
also to be worshipped and glorified togetller with the Father and tile Son. Basil
preserves a christological approach to the Trinity and upholds the divine monar
chy, but by asserting homotimia takes us from tile right theological conviction of
equality of nature, to tile right Christian practice of equality of honor, lest we
should know God, but not honor him as God (Rom 1:21).
sasue thing in his doctrine of the Trinity He w,’ites, “The Son isfmm that Fatherwho is, the only begot
tenfmm the unbegotten, the offspringfsoot the parent, the living onefioos the living one. As the Father
has life in Himself, so the Son has been given life inHiniself. The perfect onefsons the perfect one,
because the whole one fsvm the whole one. There is no division or dissection, becat,se the fullness of
the Godhead is in the Son The one isfsvm the other and is not different in anything, hecatise the
life of the living one is in the living one” (HilaryofPoitiers, On T/,eThnilv [trans. Stephen McKenna;
Washington, D.C.: CatholicUniversityofAsnericaPress, 19541,2.11; my italics).
~° Dun-i-I, A B’iefHisto0~ 137.
~ Kevin Giles tises the Athanasian and Cappadocian arguments for ontological eqtsalii.y to con
clude that there was no concept of relational sttbordination at Nicaen. See Kevin Giles, 7’1,e 7)i,,i~
& S,thordinationism: 77w Doctrine of Cod and the Conteosporasy Gender Debate (Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity, 2002), 32-43. 1-lowever, as ~ have seen, Athana.sius and Basil establish inseparable operation
and divine unity by establishing both ontological equality and relational subordination as necessary
outcomes of the relations in question. In doing so, they counter their subordinationist opponents
without slipping into the opposite heresy of polytheism.
52 McIntyre, Shape ofPne,onatoto1g, 98.
a’ McIntyre notes helpfully concerning the Tmpiciiand Pne,w,otonsoc/,oi, “Their views amounted
notjust to a misundensanding of the nature of the Floly Spirit and to a depreciation of Ins statt,s,
but to what was much more ,edous—a total failure to understand the Godhead, the way in which
God works in creation, redemption and sanctification, and the implications of baptism and regen
266 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGIGALJOURNAL
II. Relational Subordination, Ontolegical Equality, and Homotimia
Considered Systematically
We shall now establish what homotimia means when applied to the Spirit by,
firstly, testing the legitimacy of the move from the mission language of inseparable
operation, to the perichoretic language of divine unity; secondly, evaluating the
biblical account of the Spirit’s relational subordination to, and ontological
equality with, the Father and the Son; thirdly, drawing out implications for our
understanding of divine personhood; and finally, providing content for Basil’s
twofold doxology.
1. The Relationship Between the Economic and the Immanent Trinity
The legitimacy of the move from Cod’s work to God’s being lies in the truth
fulness of God’s revelation. Here we must leave Basil for more recent discussions.
Bavinck makes clear that there is no religion apart fi’om God’s self-revelation.
God reveals himself because “God is God and wants to be served as God.”54
Religion and revelation are inseparable.55 This establishes a foundation for
Rahner’s argument that what is seen of God economically must belong to God
immanently.56 His dictum, “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the
~ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity,”57 expresses the truthfulness of God’s
self-communicationP8
Congar responds to Rahner by dividing economy and immanence to preserve
Cod’s mystery.5° His modification may simply assert that the immanent Trinity is
not exhaustively the economic Trinity, but as he concludes by stating that the
Father’s omnipotence is not displayed economically, he questions the reliability
of God’s revelation to us.6°
LaCugna responds to Rahner by collapsing the economic and the immanent.
She asserts, “There is neither an economic nor an immanent Trinity; there is
~ Herman Bavinck, RefonnedDogmatics (ed.John Bolt; trans.JohnVriend; 4vols.; Grand Rapids:
BakerAcademic, 2003—2008), 1:279. Turretin makes a similar pointwhen he argues that “the Word
of God is the sole principle of theology” (Francis Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology [ed.James T.
Dennison,Jr.; trans. George Musgrave Giger; 3 vols.; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed,
19921,1:55 [2.1.11).
~ Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:349.
~ Karl Rahner, The Trinity (NewYork: Crossroad, 1997), 36.
~ Ibid., 22; italics original. Bavinck concludes in the same way, ‘The ‘ontological’ Trinity is mir
rored in the ‘economic’ Trinity” (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:318).
~ Letham, The Holy Trinity, 296. Cole stresses the need to clarify Rahner’swarning that one might
relate the authority of the Spirit overJesus in his earthly life hack into the immanent Trinity to es
tablish a subordination of the Son to the Spirit in the eternal internal life of the Trinity (Graham A.
Cole, He Who Gives Lift: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit [Wheaton: Crossway, 2007], 171-72). However.
a Chalcedonian understanding of the one person ofJesus in two natures helps to avoid confusion,
L Spirit of God, who operates in us, because in them we really already possess the Trinity itself as such,
80 ,,,,n’nrr.L. ~ 0.1 01
TI-XE SPIRIT IN ST. BASIL 267
only the oikonomia that is the concrete realization of the mystery of theologia.”°5
God is God for us. There is no longer a Triune God independent of creation
completing the mission of God in creation, but a pantheistic or panentheistic,
“impersonal theological principle,” as Weinandy notes.62
Both departures are unsatisfactory. Because Cod is truthful it is entirely appro
priate for Athanasius and Basil to use their understanding of inseparable opera
tion to give content to perichoresis. Relations should be established immanently
as they are revealed economically. This means that moving forward, the Spirit is
what the Spirit does, and in the first instance, “the doctrine of the Trinity means
getting our redemptive story straight.”°5 We shall now consider the biblical
material to establish the Spirit’s distinct work in the divine mission.58
2. The BiblicalAccount of the Work of the Spirit
As space is lacking and our final concern is a contemporary application of
homotimia this study shall be restricted to the Spirit’s work in the church.58
The Spirit provides our knowledge of the gospel (Acts 2:16-21). He is our
teacher (Luke 12:12), revealing the secret things of God (1 Cor 2:6-13). These
activities relate to his life-giving activity (John 3:5-8). He enables the writing of
Scripture, and opens our eyes to understand it (2 Pet 1:19-21 and Eph 1:15-23).
He fills us with boldness, empowers us, and directs us to speak ofJesus (Acts
4:23-31). His power accompanies our preaching (1 Cor 2:2-5). The Son pours
out the Spirit, that the Spirit may bear witness, and bring glory to the Son and his
gospel (John 16:14-15). And so, when the Spirit speaks, Cod speaks (Acts 28:25-
27; 2 Pet 1:21) ~ No one can comprehend God’s thoughts except by the Spirit
(1 Cor2:1O-11). Heteaches alltruth (John 14:25-26).
The Spirit applies the gospel to our lives. He justifies us in the name ofJesus
(1 Cor 6:11). He assures us of our salvation (Eph 1:1-14). Only by him can we say,
‘Jesus is Lord” (1 Cor 12:3-6). He sets us free in Christ (Rom 8:2). He is the
61 LaCugna, Codfor Us, 223.
62 Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit ofSons/zip: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1995), 131-32. See also Letham, The Holy Tthuty, 298,364. Also, Mark Husbands, “The Trinity Is Not
Our Social Program.” in Trinitadan Theology for the Church (ed. DanielJ. Treier and David Lauber;
Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 121.
°~ OanielJ. Treier and David Lauber, introduction to Thnitevian Theologtfortlw Church (ed. Daniel
J. Treier and David Lauber; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 17.
~ Rahner notes, “If it is true that we can really grasp the content of the doctrine of the Trinity
only by going back to the history of salvation and of grace, to our experience ofJesus and of the
then there never should be a treatise on the Trinity in which the doctnne of the ‘missions’ it at best
only appended as a relatively unimportant and additional scholion” (Rahner, l’he Trinity, 40; see
also p.48).
~ Had we space itwould be worthwhile also considering the Spirit’s work in creation, Israel, and
the person ofJesus according to his human nature, Such studies would very much confirm the na
 r
268 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
firstfruits of the hope to come who calls us to the new heaven and earth (Rom
8:23-25; Rev 22:17). He guarantees we will respond, as the life of our resurrec
tion (2 Cor 5:1-5; 1 Cor 15:44). And so, the Spirit is included with the Father and
the Son in baptism, for in completing the one mission ofGod, it is truly his mis
sion as God (Mats 28:19)67 He grants new birth and gives life (John 3:3-8; Ezek
37). As the Lord the Spirit brings freedom (2 Cor 3:17-18). To be born of him is
to be born of God (John 1:1243).
The Spirit prepares the church for glory. He makes us into the one body of
Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Paul prays for the fellowship of the Spirit, for a Spirit-filled
church displays unity in Christ (2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:1-6). The Spirit gifts the
church accordingly, that Christ’s body may be edified (1 Cor 12:7-11, 14:12). He
washes and sanctifies us in the name ofJesus (1 Cor 6:11). If we belong to Christ
we must walk by the Spirit, for that is Christ in us (Gal 5:16-26). And so, unless he
dwells in us, we cannot belong to God (Rom 8:9-11). His dwelling in us is God
dwelling in his temple (1 Cor 3:16-17). The same Spirit, Lord, and God distribute
gifts, so the Spirit’s gifts are the work of Cod (1 Cor 12:4-6; Heb 2:4). He executes
God’s will in our lives, and he enables our worship of God (Rom 9:26-27; Phil
3:3). So, when Ananias lies to the Holy Spirit he is told, “You have not lied to
men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4).
The Spirit is distinct, but not separate, doing everything in relation to the
Father and the Son.°~ In the Spirit, through Christ, we gain access to the Father
(Eph 3:18). The persons are not interchangeable, but they co-operate together
in their specific roles in the mission: the begetting and spirating Father, the
begotten Son, and the spirated Spirit.m As Basil articulated: the Father is the first
cause, the Son the creator, and the Spirit the perfector (Spirit 16.38).~° The
67 On this verse GaMn notes, ‘This means precisely to be baptized into the name of the one
God who has shown himself with complete clarity in the Fathes; the Son, and the Spirit. Hence it is
t 1965), 229.
quite clear that in God’s essence reside three persons in whom one God is known’ (Galvin, Institutes
ofthe Christian Religion [ed.John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: West
minster, 1960], 1:140 [1,13.16]). Bavinck also notes, “The choice is clear: either the HolySpiritis
a creature—whether a power, gift, or person—or he is truly God. If he is a creature he cannot in
fact in truth communicate to us the Father and the Son with all their benefits; he cannot be the
principle of the new life either in the individual Christian or in the church as a whole” (Bavinck,
Reformed Dogmatics, 2:312).
~ Gunton, Fathe, Son and Spirit, 82. See also Mcintyre, Shape ofPneusnatology, 93.
~ Bavinck, ReformedDognatics, 2:319; Gunton, Fatlte’ Son and Spirit, 80; Congai; IRe//eve in the Holy
Spirit, 3:147. The lilioque debate does not affect this order. As Cole notes, “What is of great impor
tance is thatwhether one takes the Western approach or the Eastern one, in the economy ofsalwttion
Pneumatology must not be divorced from Christology” (Cole, He Who Gives L~fr, 199). In tenns of
the one mission of God, the Spirit is clearly asked for by the Son, to be sent by the Father (John
14:16), sentby the Father in the name of the Son (John 14:26). and senthy the Son directly (John
16:7). The question ofwhether “sending” implies “procession” is not relevant here, and beyond the
kope of this article.
70 See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:143 (1.13.18); Gole, He Who Gives Life, 103; McIntyre, Shape of
Th,eumatoIo~, 99. Bavinck has a slightly differentway ofexpressing a similar sentiment by describing
THE SPIRIT INST. BASiL 269
Godhead upholds a divine monarchy; the Spirit is a delegation from the Father
and the Son in his work.7’ So it is right to consider him “self-effacing,” as He
completes in us the Father’s mission through the Son.72 But, his subordinate
office does not alter his necessary equal divinity.73 The Spirit’s inseparable opera-
don with the Father and the Son requires both relational subordination and
ontological equality.
3. The Spirit c Personhood
Following Rahner, we can now move from the Spirit’s work to tile Spirit’s
person retaining both relational subordination and ontological equality. Conse
quentiy, divine personhood is defined by relational distinction, not diverse
substance, and “person” is a category for which we do not have a strict analogy.74
For Bavinck personhood is “the unity of the divine being [opening] itself up
in a threefold existence.”75 Calvin explains, “In each hypostasis the whole divine
nature is understood, with this qualification—that to each belongs his own pecu
liar quality.”76 So Turretin argues, personal distinctions are not formal or proper,
but eminent and analogical, “all imperfections being removed.”77
Rahner clarifies personhood by explaining that “the one God subsists in three
distinct manners of subsisting,”78 but in doing so Rahner depersonalizes the
persons?° Instead, with Augustine, we must retain the term “person,” and with it
affirm God’s unity and diversity in his divine simplicity~° The one and the many
expresses the distinction in terms of the Son accomplishing our salvation and the Spirit applying it
to our lives (Calvin, Institutes, 1:537 [2.1.1]).
~ Owen, Communion wit/i God (vol. 2 of hit Works offohn Owen; London: Banner of Truth.
72 Gunton, Father~ Son and Spirit, 81.
75 Owen, Com,nunion with Go4 229. See also Turretin, Institutes, 1:303 (3.30.2-4).
n Eavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:304. Rahner’s comment is helpftil, “Person’ as a concrete con
cept, in contrast with ‘personality’ (‘subsistence,’ ‘subsistentiality’), means not formally the distinc
tions as snch, but those who are distinct. But ours is a case where we should speak of three persons,
yet not think of three who are distinct as multiplied also in their essence, as we may do without any
difficulty in other instances, e.g., when we speak of ‘three individuals.’ This shows us already that, in
reference to God, we may not speak of three persons in the same way that we do elsewhere We
keep forgetting that “three persons” means neither a group~building multiplication of the essence
nor an ‘equality’ of the personality of the three persons’ (Rabner, The Trinity, 105).
75 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:302.
76 Calvin, Institutes, 1:143 (1.13.19).
77Turredn, Institutes, 1:278 (3.27.3).
78 Rahoer, The Trinity, 109.
7~ Letham, The Holy Trinity, 296.
~ See both Augustine’s discussion on the term “person” (Augustine, The Trinity [trans. Edmund
Hill; NewYork: New City Press, 19911,217-32 [7]); and his discussion on simplicity (Augustine, City
of God [trans. Henry Bettenson; London: Penguin Books, 1972], 440-42 [11.10]), In fairness to
Rahner, this is actually an observation he makes too as he reflects, “it makes sense to affirm this
mutual ordination of ‘generation’ and knowledge on the one hand, of ‘spiration’ of the Spirit and
lnvenn theniherhand even tt,nnot, ~e~ee,.t ~ ,.t,,,... ~
 r
270 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
must be held together. We should conclude with Gregory of Nazianzen, “No
sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendor of the
Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than lam carried back to the One.”5’
4. The Equal Honor ofHoly Spirit
Honwtirnia must hold together both relational subordination and ontological
equality, for each person “is identical with the entire being and equal to the
other two [persons] or all three together.”82 Both relational subordination and
ontological equality are of equal importance in the divine mission, both are nec
essary for our salvation, bothare retained in the immanent person, and both must
be asserted as we honor the Spirit. As Owen concludes, “The Holy Spirit is an
eternally existing divine substance, the author of divine operation, and the ol>
ject of divine and religious worship.~ss
Therefore, Basil defends two equally important doxological formulations:
(1) “Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit,” relating to their distinct
economic work.
(2) “Glory to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit.” relating to their
common essence. (Spirit 1.3; 25.60; my italics)
Both doxologies ascribe glory to the Spirit, and both matter if we are to recount
God’s work back to him (Spirit 25.59). We shall consider each proposition.
Doxology 1: lii the Holy Spirit: Honoring the Spirit as relationally subordinate to the
Father and the Son. Firstly, because we live in the economy of the Spirit, in some ways
he is the author rather than the object of our pmyexs.~ He is self-efflicing, with a
“floodlight ministry.”u Stephen accuses the Jewish council of dishonoring the
Spirit by resisting him, by which he means refusing to look to and accept the One
to whom the Spirit points (Acts 7:51). So Owen notes, “The not obeying of [the]
word. . . is called resisting the Holy Ghost.”~° As we seek to know God through his
Word, “come Holy Spirit and shine your light onjesus” may well be our prayer.87
identical within him, constitute nonetheless the basis for two processions and thus fnr three distinct
I
manners of subsisting” (Rahner, The Trini~, 116-17). Turretin, in his discussion nf the Trinity, also
makes it clear that when talking abnut three persons we are nnt talking about a composition (Tur
retin, Institutes, 1:278 [3.27.4]).
~ Gregory Nazianzen, ‘Oration 40: On Holy Baptism” (NPNF’ 7), online at http://wwwccel.
org/ccel/schaff/npnt207.iii.xxiii.html, xli (accessed Dec. 22, 2009). It is worth noting that Calvin
also ends up quoting Gregory as he considers the persons of the Trinity. See Institutes, 1:141
(1.13J7).
II
82 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:304.
83 Owen, Communion wit/i God, 400; my italics.
84 Bavinck, Refaimed Dogmatics, 2:311. See also Turretin, Institutes, 1:307 (3.30.16).
°‘ cole, He M’l,~ Gives Lqe, 284.
~° Owen, Com,nunion with God, 268.
.,
THE SPIRIT INST. BASIL 271
Secondly, “without the Spirit there is no union with Christ.”84 God the Holy
Spirit completes the mission of God: we are not left to our own devices.80 When
Jesus speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it is a failure to recognize the
Spirit’s work as Cod’s work, thus disqualifying oneself from inclusion in God’s
salvation (Matt 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10). In response, thanks and
praise must be attributed to all three together, author, treasure, and effecior.°°
Thirdly, we are called not to grieve and not to quench the Spirit (Eph 4:30; 1
Thess 5:19). We are to walk by, and keep in step with, the Spirit (Gal 5:16-26).
Basil’s goal in writing was to encourage holy living (Spirit 30.76-79) ~ We belong
to God, but more specifically, we belong to the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19).92
So does the church, and the Spirit’s work in both is closely related as we honor
him by malntaining his unity (Eph 4:3)Y~
A right honor of the Spirit preserves his dignity whilst recognizing what is at
stake in that dignity.°’ In honoring the Spirit as relationally subordinate to the
Father and the Son, we may well pray moreforhim as their delegate, but he must
also be included in our praise. His personal distinction proves that God contin
ues to hold the initiative in revelation, salvation, and sanctification, and we must
submit to and worship him for it.
Doxology 2: WiSh the Holy Spirit: Honoring the Spirit as ontologically equal with
the Father and the Son. The Spirit’s divinity can be established from the first dox
ology. It is because the Holy Spirit is Cod that he can perform his “self-effacing”
function and point to our Savior. But sinless we move to the second doxology we
do not proclaim the necessity that He be God to achieve our salvation with the
Father and the Son, nor do we proclaim that he is not another God, but the
same God, with the Father and the Son. It is on account of this work as Cod~ that
of Scripture suggest that our usual pattern in supplication should take into consideration the
monarchy of the Godhead. Within that, though, we should still consider that the Spirit is not
passive in his operations, but willingly sent, and that in order to fully consider and express the
divine unity and equal essence of the persons it can also be helpful to pray to the Spirit in relation
to the Father and the Son. Such prayer wilt not undermine the monarchy, but zoilt guard against
dividing the Trinity.
88 Cole, He Who Gives LqI, 24l.See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:537(3.1.1) and 1:736 (3.lLlO).
89 Cole, He Who Gives Lj/b, 243.
9° Owen, Communion with Cod, 16.
91 Noted by Gunton, Fatheç Son and Hoty Spirit, 8. Charry describes Basil’s work as “aretegenic,”
meaning that it had a ‘virtue shaping function” (Ellen T. Chany, i~’ theRenewingaf Your Minds: The
Pastorat Function of Christian Doctrine [NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1997]. 19, 102-15).
92 See also Tun’etin, Institutes, 1:307 (3.30.15).
~ So Owen notes, we must “consider him by faitls as the immediate author of all supplies, assis
lances, and the whole relief we have by grace, of all good actings, risings, motions in our hearts; of
all strivings and contending against sin” (Communion with Gad, 267).
9° Chart3’, fly the Renewing of Your Minds, 110. Turretin is helpful here too as he notes thatwhat is
at stake with the Spirit is our salvation. “Divine worship is &ven to him because we are baptised in
his name as well as in that of the Father and the Son. In the Apostles’ Creed, we are commanded to
~ ~ ~
 r
272 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICALJOURNAL
we must pay him attention, give him honor, and worship him with the Father
and the Son.°5
Divine attributes are located in the person and the nature.96 So Owen con-
chides, “The divine nature is the reason and cause of all worship; so that it is im
possible to worship any one person, and not worship the whole Trinity.” Gunton
explains, “There is... a distinction of persons according to their operations. . but
not as to their being objects of worship.”96 And so Letham follows Gregory: “As
we think of the three in their distinctness, we recall that they indwell each other
in undivided union.”°°
We must distingu sh between the access to our worship, which takes into consid
eration relational subordination in the divine mission, and the object of our wor
ship, which are those persons in their equal divinity. So when we worship the
Spirit, Owen concludes, “he is not worshipped exclusively, but the whole God
head is worshipped.” In order to assert both the necessity of the Spirit’s divin
ity, and his identity as God with the Father and the Son, we rightly honor him by
not only acknowledging his divine work in the one mission, but by worshipping
him together with the Father and the Son.
5. Conclusion.
Flomotitnia for the Spirit is marked by both of Basil’s doxologies. They inform
each other: not only does the Spirit’s inseparable operation with the Father and
the Son show his divinity, it also shows his equal divinity with the Father and the
Son. 1-le can be distinctly resisted, blasphemed against, quenched, grieved, and
lied to, so he can be distinctly honored because of who he is and what he has
done.’°’ When honored and adored, he must be so in the context of the relations
he has with the Father and the Son, and the one ousia they hold together)00
~ As Bavinck notes, “The Holy Spirit is God himself [or Christi living in us Who can grant
us all these blessings? Who can cause God himselfto dwell in our hearts? Who can do all these things
but [die Spiritj who is himself God? To him accordingly, divine honor is due” (Reformed Doginatiec,
2:278-79). See also Owen, “We are dishnrity to worship the 1-loly Ghost heformat wilson of our
worshipping the Holy Ghost is not his being oar comforter, but his being Cod; Yet his being our com
forter isa powerful motive rhereunto” (communion with Cod, 270).
96 Bavinck writes. “If tlsere are distinctions, that is, these persons, have to be the same in essence.
In God there cannot be anything that is something other or less than God. There is nothing inter
mediate or transitional between the creator and the creature. Either Father, Son, and Spirit all
possess die same being and are truly God, or else they sink to the level ofcreatures, From a Christian
perspective there is no third possibility” (Reformed Jiogm atics, 2:332).
~ Owen, Com,nonion with Cod, 268. He continues, “Die proper and peculiar object of divine worship
and invocation is the essence of Cod, in its infinite excellency, dignity, majesty, and its causality, as die first
sovereign cause of all things. Noi~; this is common to all the three persons, and is proper to each of
diem; not fonnally as a person, butas God blessed for ever. All adoration respects thatwhich is common
to all; so that in each act of adoration and worship, all are adored and worshipped” (ibid., 269).
98 Gunton, Faiher~ San and Hoty Spirit. 84—85.
‘Letham, mel-Jo/v 7Wnit5, 421.
~ Owen, communion with Cod, 269. See also Lerham, The Hoty Yiiuity, 419-20.
THE SPIRIT INST. BASIL 273
III. Contemporary Implications
The Pneumatomachoi rejected Basil’s second doxology because they misunder
stood his first. Howevei; glory can only be brought to the Father in the Holy
Spirit because the Spirit is fully divine with the Father and the Son. The Spirit is
not a lesser or different God, he is God with the Father and the Son. Basil’s
second doxology shows that inseparable operation requires both relational sub
ordination a-nd ontological equality, and with his first doxology can be used to
evaluate our contemporary practice.
1. An Over-Individualized Spirit
Trinitarian relations are lightly used to explain our human need for relation
ship, but we must be careful to avoid wrongly assuming that human relations
speak univocally rather than analogically of the Trinity. Though as humans we
long for oneness, and in a sense are hornoousios, this is in a different way to God;
we are notjust personally distinct, but individualized in a way that God is not.
In the Trinity we cannot speak of individualized persons. The Son and the
Spirit are not rivals to the Father, they uphold the monarchy distinctly by demon
strating relational subordination; and the language of inseparable operation
becomes a basis for perichoresis. Divine personhood affirms both distinction
and ontological equality.
In contemporary evangelicalism however, a Trinitarian person, especially the
Spirit, is often only considered as distinct. Our emphasis is almost entirely on his
“self-effacing” character. lOS The result is that our doxologies only ever look like
Basil’s first. So Chester concludes, “I would want [my Muslim friends] to see a
supernatural community that reflects the sending by the Father of the Son in the
power of the Spirit and the glorification by the Spirit through the Son of the
Father.”°’ Though Chester briefly considers Basil’s work On the Holy Spirit in his
historical section,’05 at no point does he affirm Basil’s second doxology.
A brief look at more popular works on the Spirit confirms this tendency.’°°
But, if Basil’s second doxology is not affirmed, the first doxology becomes con
siderably weaker. When the Spirit is honored with the Father and the Son, the
one divine ousia is established and the Spirit’s distinct work rests on his necessary
equal divinity. Jf omitted, in the first instance this does not strip the Spirit of his
divinity, but it does result in division and ultimately polytheism.
~ See DavidJackman, Spirit of‘Ruth (Feani, U.K.: Christian Focus, 2006),49-62; Graham Beynon,
Experiencing the Spirit (Nottingham: InterVarsity, 2006), 25-36;J. I, Packet; Keep in Step with the Spirit
(Leicester.lnterWstsity, 1984),65-66;Tim Chestei;DetightingintheTrini~(Oxford:Monarch,2005),55.
t04 Chester, Detightingin the Trinity, 186; my italics,
~ Ibid., 93.
tOO See four of die most popular books on the Floly Spirit published in the last five years for the
etsingelical constituency (biased towards the U.K.): Chester, Thh~rhtingin the7iini~;Jacknsan, S/ririt ofTruth;
Beynon, ExpedencingtheSphit. Cole in his recent work does nor include the second doxolog); and as he
 F
274 wESTMINSTER TI-IEOLOGICALJOURNAL
2. Leaning Towards Division and Polytheism
If personhood is oniy ever explained in terms of distinction, without properly
affirming that each person displays the full ousia, distinction begins to look like
division.Jackman reasons, “The Spirit.. gloriflesjesus, and the church glorifies
Jesus too... . Anything that brings glory to the Spirit, rather than the Son and the
Father, is not the Spirit’s work.”°7 Jackman may simply be trying to avoid a
wrongly divided worship of the Spirit that he has witnessed in Charismatic cir
cles.lts However, at no point doesJackman correct the perceived imbalance by
asserting Basil’s second doxology. I-us corrective is not that “instead of bringing
glory to the Spirit rather than the Son and the Father, we should instead bring
glory to the Spirit with the Son and the Father.” By suggesting that it is possible
to divide our worship of the SpiritJivin our worship of the Son and the Father,
and by grounding that division in the Spirit’s economic work, personhood seems
to have slipped momentarily from distinction to division.
If we only ever talk about the Spirit as self-effacing, then we give the impres
sion that we bring glory to the Spirit only by bringing glory to the Father and the
Son, with serious implications. If the Holy Spirit is divine, but we do not bring
him glory together with the Father and the Son, then he must be divine in a
differentway: he must be a different Cod. Lf we assert hornoitinriawe are by impli
cation asserting homoiousios, and ontologically subordinating the Spirit under
the Father and the Son.’°°
Jackman has no intention of ontologically subordinating the Spirit under the
Father and the Son.’5° However, as he guards against bringing glory to the Spirit, it
is possible Basil would respond, “The Holy Spirit cannot be divided from the Fa
ther and the Son in worship. If you remain outside the Spirit, you cannot worship
at all, and if you are in Him you cannot separate Him from God” (Spirit 26.64).”’
Letham is able to make the same point asJackman and voice the same con
cern but in a way that retains the equality of essence and honor. He writes,
Richard CaiRn, in a recent article, points to a tendency in the charismatic movement to
separate die Holy Spirit from Christ. He counters by pointing to the close connection
that Paul draws between Christ and the Spirit. This argument is undergirded by the
patristic teaching on perichoresis, the mutual indwelling of the three persons, all oc
cupying the same divine space. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, the
1-loly Spirit is in the Son and the Father, the Father is in the Holy Spirit, and the Son is
in the Holy Spirit. Thus, to worship one person at the expeose of die others is to divide
07 Jackman, Spirit of Troth, 61; my italics.
~ Although it is questionable as to how well Ibunded such an observation is. Parry laments the
lack of glory given to the Spirit in his own Charismatic circles (Robin Parry, Worshipping Trinity:
Co,ningBoch to the 1-lean of Worship [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005], 116).
‘°~ Another mistake would he to assert isotimio: a divided equal ofworship that implied polythe
ism. Crucially, homotimia is about united equal worship. The Spirit is worshipped together wills the
Father and the Son, equally and without division.
THE SPIRIT INST. BASIL 275
the undivided Tminity. Worship of any one of the three at once entails worship of all
three and worship of the indivisible Trinity. An undue emphasis on one person,
whether it be the focus on Jesus in pietism or the concentration on the 1-loly Spirit in
charismatic circles is a distortion.~i
It is extremely rare to find this kind of corrective with the appropriate emphasis,
and as a result, in our attempt to distance ourselves from a perceived Charis
matic overemphasis, we become a part of Letham’s other concern, we place an
undue emphasis onJesus and become pietistic.
3. A Confused Chsistocentrisrn
One concern we have is that by asserting homolirnia for the Holy Spirit we may
lose our christocentric focus. However, our Christocentricity requires the Spirit’s
application of Christ’s accomplishments to our lives. A christocentric church
should praise the Spirit for making Christ all in all, and ask for the Spirit’s help
in keeping Christ central.
This is not a call for Pneumatocentrism,~S but a call to prevent our Christo
centrism from collapsing into Christomonism: to assert a Christ-centered gospel,
whilst honoring equally the Father and the Spirit. Ortlund concludes, we must
remain Christ-centered, “while cheerfully affirming the co-equality, co-eternality
co-divinity and soteriological co-necessity of Father, Son, and Spirit.”1 It is strik
ing, however, that he also follows the tendency not to affirm harnotimia.
Ortlund’s article is problematic. He draws two conclusions: (1) it is only
through Christ that we know of the Trinity, and (2) the Trinity itself is Christ-
centered. His first point is clear and welcomed; however, the second point is
confusing. What does he mean by the Trinity being Christ-centered in itself? He
wants to conclude, ‘We comprehend the Triune Cod through the lens of Christ
(adequately, not exhaustively) and Christ through the lens of the triune God.”
What does it mean to be christocentric through the lens of the triune Cod? We
have established above that the divine mission is from the Father, through the
Son, in the Holy Spirit, and Basil’s first doxology reflects that truth by bringing
glory “in the Spirit, through the Son, to the Father.” What does “Christ-centered”
mean when the Trinity itself upholds the divine monarchy of the Father?
There is a difference between our need to be Christ-centered, for there is no
true worship without revelation, and the Trinity being eternally and immanently
Christ-centered in itself As we, with Paul, desire to know nothing except Christ
crucified, we should do so while asserting how it is that we know and believe in
112 Leda,n, ‘She Holy ‘Iiiniiy, 421
“~ For example, Pinnocksuggests thatwe shotild view ‘Christasan aspectof the Spirit’s mission,
instead of(as is more usual) viewing Spirit as a function of Christ’s” (Clark H. Pinnock, FlaomeofLooe:
A Theology ofthe Holy Spirit [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 19961,80).
Dane C. Ordund, ‘Christoceotrism: Au Asymmetrical Trinitarianisn2,” Them 34 (2009), on
line n, him / ~h mn,nI,—.—~,.li,i ~ /,,,.hi;,i,,~ /n,Ln ~
276 WESTM1NSTERTHEOLOGICALJ0URN~~
him,Just as Paul does (1 Cor 2:2-16).”° As we do, we testify to the perfection of
God’s inseparable operation in his one mission, thereby bringing glory to all
three persons.
4. The Forgotten Foundation of Our Spiritual Union with Christ
The immediate problem of dividing the Spirit from the Father and the Son is
blindness to his divine work in our lives. In my role as a church pastor it has
quickly become apparentJust how difficult many people find it to grasp the new
identity thatwe have in Christ, and how hard itis to truly believe the implications
of our faith union with him. If we never move from Basil’s first doxology to his
second, we quickly forget that the Spirit does notjust happen to be Cod, but He
has to be God, with the Father and the Son, and his work is no less assured.
Because Calvin states, “faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit,”55 so he can
conclude, “Christ. . dwells within us. Not only does he cleave to us by an indivisi
ble bond of fellowship, butwith a wonderful communion, day by day, he grows
more and more into one body with us.””7 Leaving him to warn, “This... miserable
blindness to charge with arrogance Christians who dare to glory in the presence of
the Holy Spirit, without which glorying in Christianity itself does not stand!”8
5. Conclusion
Ifwe do not affirm with our worship that the Spirit is fully divine with the Father
and the Son, then we leave room for both his person and his work to be dimin
ished. It is not enough to simply affirm the Spirit’s deity. We must affirm that he
is divinejust as the Father and the Son are divine, and worship them together. If
we do not, then the Spirit is quickly divided from the Father and the Son, their
operations are separated, and the door is left open for polytheism. Basil under
stood this danger well. In the face of a second wave of Arianism, he insisted on
two doxologies that mutually inform each other, and that bring equal honor to
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: our Triune God.
Are we guilty of neglecting Basil’s second doxology? Basil has, I think, much
to teach us. This issue alone underlines the importance of drinking deeply from
the great theologians of history, having our eyes drawn beyond our own cultural
horizons, in order that we may appropriately critique our God-given contexts
with the God-breathed Word, and respond with balance. A good dose of the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed may be Just the tonic to relieve our current
pneumatological blindness in theology and worship.
‘‘~ It is so striking both thatvv. 346 begin with v.2, and that v.2 is followed by vv 3-16!
116 Inst itntes, 1:541 (3.1.4).
WI’J 74 (2012): 277-90
AMBROSIASTER ONJUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IN HIS
COMMENTARIES ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES
DONGSUN Ct-jo
I. Introduction
B oth Catholics and
ofJustification by faith
manyalone
Protestants
was alien
haveto traditionally
the church fathers.’
assumed In
that
particular,
Protestants such as T. F. Torrance and Maurice Wiles were skeptical about the
the idea
continuity between first”century Christianity and second-century Christianity on
Justification by faith.2 Alister McGrath supposed that Augustine might be the
first patristic writer who presented at least a meaningful discussion of the role of
faith in Justification.3 The difference between Catholics and Protestants in this
assumption is that the former group sees solafide as a theological invention of
Lutherans and other sixteenth-century Protestants, and the latter takes it as the
recovery of die Pauline doctrine ofJustification.
However, some Protestants have recently begun to realize that the doctrine of
Justification by faith alone had not been lost since the NT era. Thomas Oden
refutes the argument that the church fathers completely forgot Paul’s doctrine
ofJustification by faith alone, and shows how many church fathers faithfully held
the evangelical doctrine ofJustification. He maintains that to speak of the sudden
disappearance of the doctrine ofjustification by faith alone is “an intemperate
idea” and “neglectful”” of many ancient consensus-bearing texts.”4 In a similar
spirit, Daniel H. Williams asserts that “not only is such a view anachronistic and
DOOgSUU Cho is Assistant Professor ofHistorical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Fort Worth, Tex.
For a Catholic perspective see Robert B. Eno, “Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of
Faith and Works inJusd6cation,’ in Justification tr~’Foitlz: Lutherans anti Catholics i,iDiatogne VII(ed.
I-I. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, andJoseph A. Burgess; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985),
111-30. For a Protestant perspective see Bengt HSgglund, History of Theology (trans. GeneJ. Lund;
St. Louis: Concordia, 1966), 17; K Hildebrandt, christiasuty According to the Westeys (Grand Rapids:
Bake,; 1997), 18; EberhardJungel,Just~tication: The Heart of the Christian Faith (uans.J. K Cayzer;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 70-73.
2 T. K Torrance, TheDoct tine of Gmcein theApostotirFathen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 44;
Maurice Wiles, 7’heDivineApostle: The Interpretotion ofPaiit~c Epistles in the Early Ch,twlt (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), 134-35.
Mister McGrath, IustitiaDei:A History ofthe ChristianDoctrineofJustiJication (2d cd.; NewYork:
Cambridge University Press, 1998), 23. For McGrath, Ambrosiaster presentsjustificadon as freedom
from “thejewish ceremonial law,” not frons “a law of works’ (ibid., 22).
Thomas Odeo, TlieJnst ijication Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 16,