Breathed and Begotten: Distinguishing between the Son and the Spirit

This article originated as a theology paper written for the purpose of my studies with Union Theological College in Spring 2025.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the Lord is one.” This declaration in Deuteronomy 6:4 goes to the heart of Christianity. And yet, it also raises an obvious question. For if God is one essence, how can we distinguish between the three divine persons? The common consensus is that as “subsistent relations”, they only exist “in relation to one another.”[1] For this reason, we can distinguish the Father, as he subsists in relation to the Son he begets (Ps. 2:7), and the Spirit he breathes (John 15:26). However, theologians have found it more challenging to distinguish between the Son and the Spirit. For if they both eternally subsist from the Father, how are they to be distinguished from each other?

This assignment will examine how we can properly distinguish between the processions of the Son and the Spirit. It will begin by showing that Scripture does clearly distinguish them. It then explains how they are distinct, arguing Scripture differentiates them in three main ways. Finally, it tentatively considers some historic proposals for explaining why they are distinct.

Are they distinguished?

Before exploring how to distinguish the processions, we must first acknowledge that Scripture evidently does distinguish them.[2] Before “prying into God’s secrets”, we should receive what has been openly revealed (Deut. 29:29).[3] For Scripture draws a clear distinction between their persons (Matt 3:16; 28:19).[4] This is most obvious in their divine missions (Gal. 4:4; Acts 1:8). However, it is also clearly stated regarding their eternal processions. Richard Muller points out that John 15:26 has frequently been cited to demonstrate this eternal distinction.[5] Reformed theologians, including both John Calvin and Peter Vermigli, highlight the obvious fact that in speaking of sending the Spirit who proceeds from Father, the Son distinguishes the Spirit as eternally distinct from himself.[6] Even John Owen, who interprets this as primarily speaking ad extra, acknowledges that the text has ad intra implications.[7] Such a conclusion is strengthened by similar language elsewhere (John 14:16; 16:7).[8] As a result, the question is not over whether the processions are distinct, but how they are distinguished.

How are they distinguished?

For some theologians, we have already reached the limit of understanding. Throughout history, many have held that while such truths can be stated, they cannot be elaborated.[9] For example, while Owen speaks at length about the Spirit’s economic procession, he leaves this immanent procession to simply be received by faith.[10] Nevertheless, Francis Turretin shows we can go further than just restating this truth, for Scripture distinguishes the processions in three ways.[11]

First, they are distinguished in their principle. For while the Son proceeds from the Father alone, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son.[12] While this is contested by the Greek tradition, it seems clear that the Latin view has a sounder basis. As Turretin points out, the Spirit is clearly called the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and it is surely part of all that the Father has given the Son (John 16:13–15).[13] Furthermore, the Spirit is sent from both the Father and the Son (John 16:7), and is breathed out by the Son (John 20:22). If the Spirit temporally proceeds from the Son, we can conclude he eternally proceeds from him. For “his temporal mission in salvation history is grounded in his eternal procession within the life of God.”[14]

Secondly, the processions are distinguished by their mode. For the Son proceeds by generation and the Spirit by spiration.[15] While no created reality is adequate, we should not ignore the fact Scripture gives these concepts as “guiding images” to help us.[16] It is arguable that generation emphasises the image often stressed of the Son (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), whereas spiration shows the powerful and lifegiving activity of the Spirit (Ps. 33:6; John 3:6; 20:22).[17] As Willian den Boer argues, we should expect the distinction between generation and spiration to “become clear in some way from the terminology when it is transferred from human reality to the divine things.”[18] Nevertheless, even if we are hesitant to define the difference between these terms exactly, it seems clear that Scripture reveals breathed and begotten to be distinct.

Finally, the processions are distinguished in Scripture by their order. For while they are coeternal, generation logically precedes spiration.[19] This explains why the Son is second and the Spirit third (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). The eternal order of processions is also demonstrated by the temporal missions, with the Spirit as “the terminus actionis.”[20]Some have tried to add a fourth distinction between them, pointing out that the Spirit does not communicate the divine essence like the Son. However, that difference is best understood as part of this third distinction of order, with the Spirit “operating from two others, but through himself.”[21]

Why are they distinguished?

Having demonstrated the processions of the Son and Spirit are distinct, and outlined the three ways in which Scripture distinguishes them, we must now consider if we can understand why this is the case. It is necessary to ask this question with great humility. Indeed, many of the late fathers, as well as the Reformed orthodox, held back from considering this issue.[22] However, it was proactively taken up by the medieval scholastics, who argued that the distinction was a result of either diverse emanations or opposed relations.

The Franciscan tradition argued the processions are distinguished because they are different emanations.[23] This went beyond merely noting the different language used of the processions in Scripture. They also built on Augustine’s distinction between word and love, and developed his analogy of understanding, word, and will.[24] On this basis, they held that the different ways in which the Son and Spirit emanate from the Father are sufficient to distinguish them, even if hypothetically the Spirit did not proceed from the Son.[25] However, it is important to remember such hypotheticals are not corroborated by Scripture.[26] Further, this approach can undermine divine simplicity, as Augustine’s analogies were never meant to be taken this far.[27]

Alternatively, the Dominicans explained the distinction by using Aquinas’ concept of “opposed relations.”[28]These are “relations that cannot be simultaneously held by the same person.”[29] For example, as the same person cannot possess both paternity and filiation. For this reason, the Father must be distinct from the Son, as uniting those two personal properties would be “irrational.”[30] Following this logic, for the Son and the Spirit to be distinct, they must be in relational opposition, namely by active and passive spiration. As a result, proponents of this view concluded that thefilioque “is the only real way of affirming a distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[31] Or as Aquinas famously put it when speaking of the Spirit and the Son, “if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him.”[32]

Conclusion

As shown above, the processions of the Son and Spirit are clearly distinct, and are distinguished by their principle, mode, and order. However, it is less clear why they are distinct. Aquinas’s arguments certainly merit close attention. For example, it is noticeable how the distinctions of both principle and order rely on thefilioqueand common spiration. Nevertheless, the fact that Scripture seems to distinguish between breathed and begotten, which has limited dependence on opposed relations,cannot be ignored. In the end, it is perhaps best to imitate the many throughout history who have received the distinction, without being able to fully rationalise it.

[1] Thomas G. Weinandy, ‘The Filioque: Theology and Controversy’, in D. Castelo and K. Loyer (eds), T&T Clark Handbook of Pneumatology(London, 2020), 175; O. P. Emery, The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God (Washington D.C., 2011), 144.

[2] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, 2003), iv: 350.

[3] St Gregory of Nazianzus, On the Holy Spirit (New York, 2002), 122.

[4] William den Boer and Riemer A. Faber, (eds.), Synopsis of a Purer Theology (2023), 89.

[5] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 350.

[6] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 372.

[7] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. W.H. Goold (Edinburgh, 1850-55), iii.117.

[8] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 350; Boer and Faber, Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 89.

[9] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 376.

[10] Owen, The Works of John Owen, ii.227.

[11] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume 1: First Through Tenth Topics, ed. James T. Dennison and trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, 1992), 309.

[12] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, 2004), 313.

[13] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 310.

[14] Fred Sanders, The Holy Spirit: An Introduction (Wheaton, 2023), 45.

[15] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 309.

[16] Bruce D. Marshall, ‘The Deep Things in God: Trinitarian Pneumatology’, in G. Emery and M. Levering (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (Oxford, 2011), 404; Sanders, The Holy Spirit, 87.

[17] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 309.

[18] Boer and Faber, Synopsis of a Purer Theology, 90.

[19] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 309.

[20] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids, 1985), 245.

[21] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids, 2019), 573.

[22] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 372.

[23] Marshall, ‘The Deep Things in God’, 408.

[24] Ames, William, ‘Of the Subsistence of God’, in The Marrow of Sacred Divinity Drawne Out of the Holy Scriptures, and the Interpreters Thereof, and Brought Into Method (London, 1642), 18.

[25] Marshall, ‘The Deep Things in God’, 408.

[26] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 376.

[27] Emery, The Trinity, 137.

[28] John T. Slotemaker, Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation Thought (Cham, 2020), 70.

[29] Marc A Pugliese, ‘How Important Is the Filioque for Reformed Orthodoxy?’, Westminster Theological Journal, 66/1(2004), 171.

[30] Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church (Grand Rapids, 2016), 154.

[31] Pugliese, ‘How Important Is the Filioque for Reformed Orthodoxy?’, 177.

[32] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1a 36.2.