Tag: Incarnation

Overview

This website opposes the Trinity doctrine because it teaches that the pre-incarnate Son of God is not a distinct Person and, therefore, did not die on the Cross. That may sound bizarre, but it is true. The discussion of the Trinity doctrine below shows the following:

This doctrine teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are a single Being with a single mind and will.

Since the term ‘Person’ implies a distinct mind, it is misleading to say that the pre-incarnate Son is a ‘Person’. The so-called ‘Persons’ are more appropriately described as modes of existing as God.

Since the Father and Son are one Being, the pre-incarnate Son cannot become incarnate. Rather, like the Father, He is immutable and cannot suffer or die.

Therefore, what happened at the Incarnation was that the Holy Spirit inspired a mere man with God’s Word. That man Jesus has a human mind. Many of the things he said, came from that human mind.

That mere man suffered, died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and now sits at God’s right hand.

The Trinity doctrine originated in the fourth century when Roman Emperors made Nicene (Trinitarian) theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire and exterminated other forms of Christianity from among the Roman people through severe persecution. The Empire protected the Roman Church (the church of the Roman Empire) until the eighth century. After the Empire fragmented, the organization that was the Church of the Roman Empire found other protectors, and became the Church of the Middle Ages, when it ruled over the nations of Europe.

The Trinity doctrine is not explained to people. It is hidden behind a cloud of cliches. People are kept away from it by warnings that it is impossible to understand because we cannot understand God, and by threats of excommunication.

But the reality is that the Trinity doctrine contradicts the Bible. It is Pandora’s Box.

A Single Person

Not distinct Minds

In the traditional formulation of the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three Persons. [Show More]

The phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness. They do not each have a distinct mind. [Show More]

Not distinct Persons

Consequently, leading Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe them as “Persons.” [Show More]

Not Hypostases

The Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also misleading because, while the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine are a single Being with one mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinctly from other things. Therefore, in the fourth century, each hypostasis has a distinct mind. [Show More]

Invisible Distinction

In the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Persons is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Being: [Show More]

Modes

So, if the terms ‘Persons’ and ‘hypostases’ are misleading, and if the distinction between them is invisible, how should the ‘Persons’ in the Trinity doctrine be described? 

The essence of the Trinity doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind and will. As quoted above, Hanson refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” The challenge would be to show how this differs from Modalism (the name Von Harnack gave to second-century Monarchianism). 

The Danger of Tritheism

One might respond and say, yes, that may be the standard Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds. That would be consistent with the Bible but if the three Persons are equal, that would be three Gods (Tritheism). The only valid way to propose three Minds is to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father. But that is ‘Arianism’. To avoid both Tritheism and Arianism, the Trinity doctrine has to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. 

The anti-Nicene View

The Trinity doctrine may be compared to what the ‘Arians’ believed. It is often claimed that the Arians believed that Jesus is a created being. Perhaps that is what Arius taught but it was most certainly not what the anti-Nicenes in general (the Eusebians) believed. While the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father and Son are a single Being with a single mind, ‘Arians’ taught a trinity of three divine Beings. They regarded the Son as a distinct divine Person (hypostasis) with a distinct mind but as subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

Incarnation

The different views of the Incarnation are discussed in more detail here. In summary:

The Nicene View

In the Trinity doctrine, it is a mere man who died, was resurrected, ascended, and now sits at God’s right hand:

Since the Father and Son are a single Being with a single mind, the Son cannot become incarnate. Rather, the Holy Spirit inspired a mere human being (Jesus) with the Word of God.

That human has a human mind. Some things Jesus said came from that human mind, for example, that he does not know the day or hour (Matt 24:36). At other times, it was God’s Word speaking through the Holy Spirit, for example, when He said that the Father and He are one.

Since the Father and Son are a single Being and since God cannot suffer or die, the Son is impassible, meaning He cannot suffer or die either. It was a mere man who suffered and died on the cross, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and now sits at God’s right hand. One may object that that implies that we are not saved, for the death of a normal human being cannot save sinners. The Bible is clear that we are saved by the death of God’s Son (e.g., I Thess 5:9-10; 1 Peter 3:18).

The Arian View

In the Arian view, to redeem the world, God produced a distinct divine Person (the Son) with a reduced divinity that allows Him to become incarnated, suffer, and even die. In this view, Jesus does not have a human soul (mind). Rather, the Logos (the Son) functions as Jesus’ mind. Consequently, Jesus Christ is the same Person as the pre-incarnate Son of God:

Everything Jesus said, was said by God’s eternal Son.

The Logos (the eternal Son) experienced all of Jesus’ suffering and He died. The Creator and God of the earth was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended.

That was not the first time that He appeared in a human body. The orthodox view of the first three centuries and the ‘Arian’ view was that all personal appearances of Yahweh to Israel are in fact the one we know as Jesus Christ. [Show More]

Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

This site discusses the Origin of the Trinity doctrine in about 50 articles. It began with the Bible. While the Old Testament declares that God is one, the New Testament reveals a second divine Being; also called ‘I am’ and ‘the First and the Last’. So, the question arose: How does the Son relate to God?

One Person – One standard answer was that the Son is as divine as the Father, and since the Bible is clear that only one God exists, the Father and Son must be a single Person. Different theologians had different explanations for how they are a single Person:

The second-century Monarchians taught that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. Consequently, the Father died on the Cross.

The third-century Sabellians taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three forms or aspects or portions of the one God. Read Article

With Athanasius at the head, the fourth-century Nicenes taught that the Son is part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are one Person. The idea that God is one Being but three Persons did not yet exist. Read Article

Three Persons – The other answer accepted the New Testament revelation of the Son as a distinct divine Person. Although the Son is divine, since only one God exists, the Son is subordinate to the Father. Since God is invisible, all personal appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament are really the Son of God. This view was maintained by the second-century Logos-theologians, the influential third-century theologian Origen, and the fourth-century Arians. 

Therefore, the core of the controversy was a dispute over whether the Son is a distinct Person. (See Article)

In the Roman Empire, the emperors ruled over the religions within that Empire. They decided which religions to allow, and after they had allowed Christianity in the early fourth century, they also decided which factions within Christianity to allow.

Most fourth-century rulers promoted Arian views and suppressed Nicene views. However, in the year 380, Theodosius, with the support of the Western Emperor Gracian, made Western Nicene Christianity the sole religion of the Roman Empire. [Show More]

Through severe persecution, both before and after the Council of Constantinople of 381, Theodosius eliminated Arianism from among the ruling class and elite of the Eastern Empire. He forbade Arian meetings, confiscated Arian churches, and exiled and even killed their leaders. [Show More]

There was no separation of Church and State. In ancient times, each nation had its god. The Roman Empire decided to make the Christian God, as explained by one of the factions of Christianity, the State Religion of the Empire. However, its version of Christianity was owned by or part of the Empire’s system of government. For example:

• • • The emperors were the real heads of the Roman Church. Only they could arrange general meetings, dictate the church’s theology, and exile ‘heretics’.
    • The Roman emperors gave bishops a powerful place in the judicial system, equal to and even exceeding that of civil judges. In this way, the State and the Church authority became blended.

Therefore, after Theodosius had decided to make Nicene Christianity the sole religion of the Empire, the Roman Church, with its hierarchy of bishops, functioned as part of the Roman government; accountable to the Emperor.

These Germanic peoples had previously migrated into the Empire. They sacked Rome twice and deposed the last Roman Emperor. Through wars, they divided up the territory of the Western Empire into Germanic kingdoms. Since they previously converted to Christianity through the missionary efforts of the ‘Arian’ Church, Europe was again under Arian rule. Two parallel hierarchies of bishops existed; Roman and Arian, but under Arian rule. (See Article)

In the Roman culture, Church and State were One, with the Emperor as the Head, with the right and duty to protect and regulate the Church. Justinian was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor from 527 to 565. In his view, his duty to protect and rule extended also to the Papacy in the West. He sent troops to liberate the Papacy and subjected the three Arian nations that were immediate threats to the Papacy. By 553, his troops had dispersed the Vandals to the fringes of the empire, forced the Ostrogoths back north to South Austria, and barricaded the Visigoths with the new province of Spania.

Justinian’s conquests began a period of two centuries known as the ‘Byzantine Papacy’ because of the extent to which the Byzantine (Eastern) monarchs dominated the Papacy. One example is the massive growth of Greek speakers in the Papal hierarchy over this period; from almost zero to the majority. During the Byzantine Papacy, the Eastern Empire ruled not only the Papacy but also the Western nations through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries, transformed the Roman Church into a very powerful political organization, and converted the remaining Arian kingdoms to Catholicism.

BUSY EDITING – SORRY.

Middle Ages

In the 8th century, Muslim military conquests subjected the Eastern Roman Empire, leaving the Roman Church in the West without military protection. But it survived as a distinct organization after the Roman Empire finally fragmented by seeking protection from other rulers, and became the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, with Nicene theology (the Trinity doctrine) as its main mark of identification. 

During the .

Scholars today recognize that fourth-century controversy was a continuation of the controversy of the previous centuries. Therefore, this brief overview begins in the second century. [Show More]

Logos theology – Two Persons

The Church became Gentile-dominated in the second century. Since the Roman authorities persecuted the Church, and since the Empire held Greek philosophy in high repute, the Gentile theologians found it effective to explain Jesus as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this view, the Logos always existed as an aspect of God but became a distinct but subordinate Person when God decided to create. [Show More]

Monarchians – One Person

The second-century Monarchians opposed Logos theology. They claimed that the Logos theologians violated the monotheism of the Old Testament by an unbiblical division of God’s substance. The Monarchians taught that Father and Son are merely two names for the same Person. [Show More]

Sabellianism – One Person

In the early third century, Monarchianism developed into Sabellianism. It still taught that Father and Son are only one Person but distinguished between the Three as three forms or aspects or portions of the one God. Sabellius was excommunicated in 220. [Show More]

Origen – Three Persons

A decade or two later, Origen expanded and revised Logos theology to teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons. He rejected the idea that the Son previously was an aspect of God and said that the Son has always existed as a distinct Person. [Show More]

Third-century Controversy

The views of Sabellius and Origen fueled the third-century Controversy. For example, in the middle of the third century, Rome, believing that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis), was in dispute with Alexandria, who believed that the Son is a distinct Person. A few years later, in 268, a council in Antioch deposed the Sabellian Paul of Samosata. [Show More]

Fourth-century pro-Nicenes: One Person

After Christianity was legalized in 313, the third-century Controversy continued in the dispute between the Arians and Nicenes. The Nicenes, following Athanasius, defended the ‘one Person’ view. They did not teach that God is three Persons; only one. The idea that God is one Being but three Persons did not yet exist. Only in the 360s did the Cappadocians add the concept of three hypostases (Persons). The Nicenes, in other words, were Unitarians. [Show More]

Arians – Three Persons

The Arians defended Origen’s ‘three hypostases’-view. While the Nicenes were Unitarians, the Arians taught a trinity of three divine Beings. [Show More]

Nicene Creed

At Nicaea, Alexander’s ‘one Person’ theology was in the minority. Therefore he joined forces with the other ‘one Person’ theologians; the Sabellians. Since the emperor took their side. the ‘one Person’ faction came out victorious. For example, one of the anathemas explicitly states that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Furthermore, before Nicaea, the term homoousios was understood by most as meaning ‘one substance’, which was equivalent to ‘one hypostasis’. [Show More]

Post-Nicaea Correction

However, in the decade after Nicaea, Emperor Constantine allowed the situation to be reversed. All deposed ‘Arians’ were allowed to return and all leading ‘one hypostasis’ theologians were deposed. After that, the term homoousios also disappeared from the Church’s vocabulary. [Show More]

The West entered the debate.

Up to this point, the West (Rome) was not involved in the Controversy. However, Athanasius and the Sabellian Marcellus appealed to the West after they were deposed. Since the West also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology, it accepted Athanasius and Marcellus as orthodox. After that council, the bishop of Rome attacked the Eusebians in the East through a letter. [Show More]

340s – Empire and Church divided.

During the 340s, the empire remained divided East and West, allowing the Eastern and Western Churches also to remain divided. While the East defended the ‘three Persons’-view, the West taught that the Father and Son are a single Person. [Show More]

350s – United Empire – One Person

In the 350s, Constantius became and remained emperor of the entire Empire. He manipulated church councils to ensure the East and West both accepted a Homoian (Arian) creed. [Show More]

From Constantius’ death until 379

Between Constantius’ death in 361 and Theodosius’ enthronement in 379, while the Eastern emperors maintained Constantius’ Homoian policy, the Western emperors followed a non-interventionist policy, allowing the Western Church to return to its ‘one Person’ roots. [Show More]

Cappadocians

During this period, the Cappadocians, who were Easterners, accepted the Nicene Creed. However, they applied the traditional Eastern ‘three Persons’ view to the term homoousios. In other words, they interpreted it as saying that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons with the same type of substance. In what is known as the Meletian Schism, this resulted in a bitter dispute between the Cappadocians and the Western pro-Nicenes, who interpreted homoousios as ‘one substance’. [Show More]

The Deception

Not Explained

The Trinity doctrine is not explained to ordinary Christians. We are not told that the ‘Persons’ are not real ‘Persons’ with distinct minds or that the eternal Son of God did not die. The explanation of the Trinity doctrine is limited to superficial but misleading cliches, such as that God is one Being existing as three Persons.

Contradiction

Gotquestions correctly points out that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differ in terms of their origins:

• • The Son is begotten from the Father,
  • The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (and the Son in the Western formulation),
  • The Father exists without a cause.

But Gotquestions still claims that they are one Being. It is contradictory to claim that they differ but are a single Being. Things that differ cannot be the same. Others argue that, since the Trinity doctrine contradicts itself, it cannot accurately reflect Bible revelation, for truth never contradicts itself. For example, listen to Trinities podcasts 2 and 3.

Beyond Human Capacity

We are also told that humans cannot understand the Trinity doctrine because humans cannot understand God. [Show More]

That, however, is false logic. It confuses the Trinity doctrine with God:

Yes, we will never be able to understand God fully. He exists without a cause. The infinite miracles in this world and the infinite size of the universe should teach us that God is infinitely beyond us (Isa 55:8-9). God reveals Himself to the capacity of His creatures but we will never in this life or the next reach the end of His infinity.

However, the Trinity doctrine is not revealed in the Bible but is a human invention. Finite human minds developed it as an explanation of God. Therefore, human minds must be able to understand it. It must be logically consistent and must be tested against the Scriptures. [Show More]

Catholics have no problem accepting doctrines that are not clear in the Bible. They understand ‘the church’ to be the source of true doctrine and the Bible is simply part of the revelation that came through the church.

Protestants, on the other hand, would not easily admit that the Trinity doctrine was a development. They are committed to Sola Scriptura and do their best to show that the building blocks of the Trinity doctrine are in the Bible. In effect, they read these things into the Bible.

Contradicts the Bible

This website argues that the Trinity doctrine contradicts the Bible: 

While the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father and Son are a single Being with a single mind, the Bible presents them as two distinct Beings with two distinct minds. (Read Article)  

And while the Trinity doctrine claims that the Father and the Son are equal in all respects. this website shows that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

Conclusions

Social Trinity

In contrast to the traditional Trinity doctrine, some modern theologians propose a ‘Social Trinity’ which describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as three real Persons with three distinct wills and minds; “three Centres of Consciousness” (Hanson, p. 737), but so united in love and purpose that they act as One. (See – Tuggy) A risk of this view, similar to the Cappadocian view, is that three equal divine wills and minds are open to the charge of Tritheism. However, this article only considered the standard, traditional Doctrine.

Discuss this with your pastor.

If you want to know what your church teaches, ask your pastor whether there are one or three divine minds. And ask whether the Son of God died, or a mere human being. Your pastor might not know how to answer and might want to avoid the subject or hide behind the standard but vague cliches.   

Mark of True Christianity

For many people, the Trinity doctrine is the mark of true Christianity and Arianism is similar to the mark of the beast. In contrast, the Arian view is regarded as similar to the Mark of the Beast. Therefore, do not be surprised if your questions are met with aggression. [Show More]

Comments

The comments to this article below show typical Trinitarian responses. This section responds to these comments:

Persons & Hypostases

Comment: The Trinity doctrine holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (Greek: hypostases) who share one divine essence (Greek: ousia).

RESPONSE: In normal English, the term “Persons” implies three distinct minds. Since the Trinity doctrine teaches a single mind, the term “Persons” is misleading. The same applies to the term “hypostasis’. During the Arian Controversy, three hypostases meant three distinct minds. For example:

In 341, the Dedication Creed states: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” “One in agreement” implies three minds.

This creed followed Origen who “speaks of Father and Son as two ‘things in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness, harmony, and identity of will’.” (Ayres, p. 25) Again, “like-mindedness” means distinct minds.

In the fourth century, the Arians, who defended a ‘three hypostasis’ theology, spoke of “two Wisdoms” and of “two Logoi” meaning that the Father is one Wisdom or Logos or mind and the Son the other.

Athanasius defended the idea that only one divine hypostasis exists (Read). In his view, “Christ is the one [the only one] power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54) He criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and not God’s own wisdom.” (Ayres, p. 116) “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will.” (Hanson, p. 428) He wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431). In other words, Athanasius’ response to the Arian ‘three hypostases’ teaching confirms that three hypostases meant three minds. 

The only pro-Nicenes who taught three hypostases during the fourth century were the Cappadocians, and they also understood it as meaning three minds.  

Therefore, for the Trinity doctrine to refer to them as “Persons” and “hypostases” is misleading.

Truly Distinct

Comment: They (the Father and Son) are not modes or mere manifestations of one God but are truly distinct in their relationships to one another while being one God in essence.

RESPONSE: The Trinity doctrine does not teach that they are “distinct in their relationships to one another.” It teaches that they are distinct only in their ‘Relations of Origin’, which refers to the fact that the Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds. However, these ‘Relations of Origin’ do not make them distinct Persons because they remain one Being with a single mind and will. The Trinity doctrine does indeed teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are ”truly distinct” but as quoted above, scholars admit that they do not know in what respect they are distinct. From the perspective of creation, they always act as one.

Father sends the Son.

Comment: The statement that “the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind” is misleading. While it is true that the three persons of the Trinity share one divine will and essence, each person also has distinct relational roles.

• • • The Father is unbegotten and sends the Son.
    • The Son is begotten of the Father and is incarnate as Jesus Christ.

RESPONSE: This comment is mistaken. As stated, in the Trinity doctrine, the only distinction between the ‘Persons’ is their Relations of Origin (begotten, proceeds). But this comment says they are distinct in that the Father sends the Son and that the Son alone is incarnate as Jesus Christ. This is inconsistent with the Trinity doctrine. Sending and incarnation are not ‘Relations of Origin’. Since the Father and Son, in the Trinity doctrine, share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, it is misleading to say that the Father sends the Son. Furthermore, as argued below, it is also misleading to say that the Son becomes incarnate.

Harmony

Comment: Each person of the Trinity acts in unity but retains personal distinction. The one divine will is not a limitation but a reflection of their perfect harmony in being and purpose.

RESPONSE: If you believe in a single mind, the term “personal” is misleading. But the term ‘harmony” in this comment sounds like Social Trinitarianism in which the Father and Son are two distinct wills in perfect harmony. That is not what the Trinity doctrine teaches. 

Incarnation

Comment: The claim that the Son cannot become incarnate or suffer because the Father and Son share one nature misunderstands orthodox Trinitarian theology. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the second person of the Trinity, the Son, took on human nature while remaining fully divine. … Jesus Christ is one person with two natures—fully divine and fully human. His human nature allowed Him to suffer and die, while His divine nature remained impassible (unable to suffer). Thus, Christ’s death on the cross is the death of the person of the Son, who fully shares in both the divine and human natures.

RESPONSE:

The question is whether the Son became incarnate, suffered, and died. This comment argues that He did because He became united with human nature, and became a single person with two natures, of which only his human nature died. I would respond as follows:

To say that only the Son became incarnate implies that it is humanly possible to distinguish between the Father and the Son. That is inconsistent with the Trinity doctrine:

Firstly, in the Trinity doctrine, as stated, the only distinction between the Persons is their “Relation of Origin” (begotten, proceeds). Since incarnation is not part of the “Relations of Origin,” Father and Son are not distinct with respect to the incarnation.

Secondly, in the Trinity doctrine, God’s substance is undividable; one cannot divide His substance between a part that became incarnate and a part that did not become incarnate.

Therefore, it is invalid to say that ‘the Son’, in distinction from the Father, became incarnate. If you say that the Son died because His human nature died, then you must also say that the Father died.

Furthermore, it is misleading to say that the Son died because, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son is eternal and immortal and cannot die. In the Trinity doctrine, after Jesus died, the Son of God remained alive and governing the universe

This comment claims that the Son died because the divine and human natures form a single undivided entity. But since only the human nature or part died, the mortal human and immortal divine natures are most certainly dividable.

The commenter should admit that the Son’s human nature includes a human soul or mind. For example, Jesus said He did not know certain things and had been given things to say. So, in the Trinity doctrine, Jesus’ human body and mind somehow joined with God’s undividable and single mind and substance. Therefore, two distinct minds were working in Jesus; a human and a divine mind.

Note that I am here not disputing the Trinity doctrine. I am disputing the explanation of it.

Divinity of Christ

Comment: The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) did not invent the divinity of Christ but defended it against the Arian heresy, which denied that Jesus was fully God.

Response: I am pleased to note that this comment does not claim that the Arians regarded Christ as a created being, as often erroneously claimed. The Arians believed in a trinity of three divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. However, since the Arians agreed that He is divine, it is false to claim that the Council of Nicaea defended Christ’s divinity. The real dispute at Nicaea and the entire Arian Controversy was whether Christ is a distinct Person, as the Arians claimed, or whether He is part of the Father, as the Nicenes claimed. (Read more)

Other Articles

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment

FOOTNOTES

• 1
  González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307.
• 2
  RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
• 3
  (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7.)
• 4
  “When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)