St. Basil and the Development of Pneumatology in the Fourth Century

13 Apr


The fourth century C.E. was a time of rapid transition in the Christian church; its status in the Roman Empire changed from a sect that was periodically persecuted to a tolerated faith and then to a state religion within eight decades. Freed from the threat of persecution and then gaining favour in the Roman Empire under Constantine, Christianity was able to elucidate key points of doctrine, especially those that dealt with the Trinity. While Trinitarian theology was not new by the fourth century, as Laurie Guy points out, “Christianity still had not approached any consensus in defining Jesus’ essential being and… relationship to God,”[1] nor had agreement been reached on the nature of and relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other two persons of the Trinity, the Father and the Son. The Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine, focused on the first question. In opposition to the followers of Arius, a preacher in Alexandria who held that Jesus was a created being and therefore was subordinate in divinity to the Father, the Council of Nicaea defined the Son as homoousios, that is, “of same the substance” and equal in divinity to the Father.[2]

However, that council did not yet discuss the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Nicaea’s affirmation of the full divinity of Father and Son did not diffuse the Arian dispute. Instead, the Arian stance evolved and gained strength as it came to challenge the notion of the divine nature of the Holy Spirit by the mid-fourth century.[3] Those who believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature, thus lesser in divinity than the Father and the Son, were called Pneumatomachians, or “Spirit fighters.”[4] St. Basil of Caesarea and his fellow Cappadocian Fathers Sts. Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus were significant in their opposition to the Pneumatomachians. Against these deniers of the Holy Spirit’s divinity, St. Basil authored De Spiritu Sancto– On the Holy Spirit- in 375.[5] In this paper I will consider the importance of De Spiritu Sancto in the development of the doctrine on the nature of the Holy Spirit as equal in divinity to the Father and to the Son. In order to illustrate the political and religious circumstances that led to St. Basil’s focus on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, I will first contextualize the writing of De Spiritu Sancto as a reply to Arianism and its offshoots that erroneously held the Son and then the Holy Spirit to be inferior in Godhead to the Father. More importantly, I will then highlight three aspects of De Spiritu Sancto that show St. Basil’s part in the development of the theology of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit: Basil’s employment of Scripture and opposition to Arian and neo-Arian misuse of Biblical terminology about the Holy Spirit, his reflection on the Spirit’s role in the Sacrament of Baptism, and his discussion of the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity.


St. Basil’s contribution to pneumatology is best comprehended within the historical milieu of the Arian controversy that pervaded much of the fourth century Roman Empire religiously and politically. Both Everett Ferguson[6] and Yves Congar[7] divide the late third century and fourth century into three periods based on the development of Christian Trinitarian dogma and the rebuttal against Arianism: the first phase was between the reign of Diocletian that began in 284 and the Council of Nicaea in 325. The second was from the Nicene Council to the inauguration of the rule of Julian the Apostate in 361, and the third was between 361 and the assembly of the Council of Constantinople by Theodosius I in 381.

St. Basil was most active during the last of these three periods. He denounced the Pneumatomachian view that the Holy Spirit was a created being, greatest among the angels but inferior in divinity to the uncreated Father and Son. The Pneumatomachian cause was championed by Eunomius, who also held that the Father and Son were unlike in essence. Supporters of Eunomius’ position were thus known as anomoeans,[8] from the Greek for ‘unlike natures’ of the Father and Son.[9] Basil rebuked the anomoeans in his tract Against Eunomius, but his greatest contribution toward the establishment of orthodox pneumatology was his De Spiritu Sancto, written in response to attacks against Basil’s “manner of relating Father, Son, and Spirit” as equally divine “in [liturgical] doxology.”[10]

In De Spiritu Sancto, St. Basil cautiously upheld the dogma of the co-divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He distinguished between the ousia, or substance, common to the three persons of the Trinity, and the hypostases, or characteristics of each person.[11] Therefore Basil did not employ the Nicene term homoousios in De Spiritu Sancto, and he empathized with those who taught that the persons of the Trinity were a homoiousios– “of like substance”- while not explicitly consubstantial.[12] Basil’s perspective was seen as divergent from the practice of Nicene Fathers like Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria from 328 to 373, of using ousia and hypostasis interchangeably with emphasis on the divine nature of the Godhead as a whole.[13] This led to criticism of Basil as either neo-Arian or neo-Platonic, in that his recognition of particularities of each person of the Trinity was equivalent to teaching that the Trinity is comprised of three gods. These charges against St. Basil were refuted by the acceptance by the Council of Constantinople of his definition of the Trinity as three hypostases in one ousia. Constantinople’s endorsement of Basil’s Trinitarian doctrine led to the establishment by Theodosius I of Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. [14]


Political Problems in the Roman Empire, the Beginning and End of Anti-Christian Persecution, the Arian Controversy, and the Council of Nicaea- to 325 

St. Basil’s posthumous victory at Constantinople over neo-Arian Trinitarian teaching and pneumatology in particular- Basil died in 379- was hard-won.[15]  From the late third century to the Council of Nicaea in 325, fifty years before De Spiritu Sancto, the teaching of Arius spread from Alexandria and gradually became more influential. Meanwhile, the process of power transfer between Roman emperors had fallen into disarray. In response to the breakdown in the system of succession of Roman emperors “from father to son,”[16] Diocletian had relocated the imperial seat from Rome in 284, and had split the empire into four prefectures “governed by two Augusti,” Diocletian and Maximian, who were “assisted [mainly in civil matters] by two Caesars,” Constantius Chlorus and Galerius.[17]

Diocletian ruled the prefecture of Oriens from its capital, Nicomedia, Maximian ruled Italy from Milan, Constantius Chlorus administered the Gauls from Trier, and Galerius presided over Illycrium from Sirmium.[18] The reforms of the imperial government, whereby the two Augusti would cede power to the two Caesars, who would be replaced by two newly-appointed Caesars every ten years,[19] did not result in orderly transfer of rule as Diocletian had hoped. Meanwhile, Christians, who would not offer sacrifice to the Roman gods, were viewed as a divisive group within the empire. Galerius thus began a repressive policy against the Christians in 303, “with support from Diocletian,”[20] which included the destruction of their Scriptures, as well as imprisonment of bishops and removal of Christians from public office as long as they were unwilling to sacrifice to pagan deities.  Following the death of Constantius Chlorus in 306, his military allies “proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor.”[21]

Constantine’s rise to power did not immediately end anti-Christian persecution in the Roman Empire, but it ushered in a period of increasing tolerance of Christianity. From 311, when Galerius died, power was shared between Constantine in the West and his ally Licinius in the East. Licinius and Constantine agreed at Milan in 313 to a policy of acceptance of the Christian faith.[22] Licinius proved unfaithful to the so-called “Edict of Milan” and renewed persecution in the East, but he was deposed by Constantine, who became “sole ruler of the whole Roman world” in 324.[23] By then, Constantine had unofficially converted to Christianity- he was not to be baptized until he was near death in 337[24]– and he “presented himself as” the divine appointee of Jesus Christ and no longer of the pagan sun-god to rule over the Roman Empire.[25]

While the reign of Constantine was marked by the transition of the Christian church from persecuted to tolerated to accepted faith throughout the Roman Empire and to a religion adopted by the emperor himself, it was also a time of increased overlap between the powers of church and state. As the jurisdiction of church and of state became progressively enmeshed, long-standing theological debates over critical points such as Trinitarian doctrine had greater potential to impinge on order in the state.  These discussions, Laurie Guy maintains, “affected not only the theologians of the church but also its grassroots members.”[26] Thus, Guy reasons, “that debates of several centuries should be significantly resolved, at least in the West, within one hundred and forty years of the advent of imperial [favour] toward Christians is… not surprising.”[27] Concern for political stability in the Roman Empire, more than personal religious conviction, led Constantine to convoke the Council of Nicaea. Arius’ teaching, which had initially gained influence among Alexandrian dock workers,[28] was causing discord among bishops by 325; Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, condemned Arius’ subordination of the Son’s divinity to that of the Father at a synod in Alexandria as early as 317, and a synod in Antioch in 325 observed by Constantine’s “ecclesiastical advisor”[29] Hosius of Cordoba rejected the pro-Arian position of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, “and two [other bishops].”[30]

Nicaea, a gathering of about two hundred fifty bishops, is rightly called the first ecumenical council because it was the first to bring together church leaders from both East and West, although only five Western bishops participated.[31] While the geographical representation at Nicaea was unprecedented, that council did not fully achieve universal peace in doctrinal matters. Everett Ferguson proposes five groups of bishops who attended the Council of Nicaea, according to their responses to Arianism.[32] The first group, which included Eusebius of Nicomedia, favoured Arianism openly. The second group, the “moderate subordinationalists,” who “did not see [Arius’] teachings as dangerous,”[33] included Eusebius of Caesarea. A third class of bishops, who most valued unity in the church, were the least theologically educated group[34] and were prepared to compromise on dogmatic points for the sake of harmony. The fourth category saw Arianism as a political and ecclesial threat to be repudiated. The fifth group was Monarchian, made up of leaders like Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra whose focus on the oneness of God did not allow for distinction between the persons of the Trinity. The Monarchists were also called Modalists or Sabellians, after Sabellius, third-century proponent of this teaching.[35]

The Council of Nicaea anathematized the Arians by clarifying that the Son, like the Father, was eternal, and that the Son, while substantially “begotten of the Father,” was not created. A Creed was introduced at Nicaea that stated that the Father and the Son were of one divine substance, or homoousios, contrary to Arian belief.[36] However, the use of the term homoousios did not suppress the Arian heresy, and it created further theological problems. Laurie Guy claims that “homoousios was the spear in the side of Arianism,” but in his next paragraph he admits that “the homoousios solution… proved to be a papering over the cracks.”[37]

Three major difficulties arose from the Nicene description of the link between the Father and of the Son as a homoousios. Firstly, homoousios emphasized the substantial unity of God, but was viewed as too Sabellian; homoousios, according to opponents of its usage, inadequately accounted for the particularity of each person of the Trinity.[38] A “semantic problem”[39] related to the Nicene expression of Father and Son as homoousios was the council’s equivocation between ousia and hypostasis. Secondly, homoousios was a non-Scriptural Greek word that had been employed by pre-Nicene Gnostics to deny the Godhead of Christ.[40] Thirdly, in its discussion of how the Father and Son were related, the Council of Nicaea did not assess the Godhead of the Holy Spirit or the Spirit’s relationship with the Father and with the Son.[41]


Nicaea to Julian the Apostate, Neo-Arianism, and Christological Debate- 325 to 363

These three items dominated the theological discussion between the Council of Nicaea and the end of the reign of Julian the Apostate in 363. A lengthy succession of mid-fourth century councils failed to attain consensus on Trinitarian doctrine.[42] At Sardica in 343, the homoousios position of Nicaea and of its champion Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, was upheld by the Western bishops but condemned by the Eastern bishops. The Western bishops reversed their support of Athanasius at Arles a decade later. The third council of Sirmium in 357, derided by Nicenes as the “Blasphemy of Sirmium,”[43] rejected both the homoousios and related homoiousios stances, even securing the signature of the pro-Nicene Hosius. Two years later, though, another council at Sirmium ratified a creed that asserted that the Son and the Father were “alike ‘in all respects.’”[44] Thus a rapprochement began between the “disparate” homoousian and homoiousian “elements favourable to Nicaea.”[45] That process was accelerated unwittingly by Julian the Apostate, who, in an effort to exploit Christian theological divisions and to “revivify paganism,”[46] overturned the banishment of pro-Nicene bishops by his predecessor as Roman emperor, Constantius II, a homoean who endorsed the view that the Father and Son were of similar essence but unequal in Godhead.[47]


St. Basil of Caesarea, Pneumatology,  the Development of Trinitarian Dogma, and the Council of Constantinople- 363 to 381

Concurrent with the merging of homoousian and homoiousian parties, which became official at the Council of Alexandria in 362,[48] the absence of doctrinal clarity on the Godhead of the Holy Spirit was increasingly exploited. Even “some homoiousians,” who considered the Father and the Son to be equally divine, “would not grant to the third person of the Trinity what they did to the second person.”[49] St. Basil of Caesarea wrote thus about the state of the church in the two decades that preceded the Council of Constantinople:

The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office. The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered.[50]


St. Basil himself was accused of inciting confusion among the people on the question on the nature of the Holy Spirit. The attack on Basil’s use in public prayer of two forms of Trinitarian doxology, one “to God the Father… with the Son together with the Holy Ghost” and the other “through the Son in the Holy Ghost,”[51] led to Basil’s composition of De Spiritu Sancto.[52]



ST. BASIL’S De Spiritu Sancto

The reply of Basil in De Spiritu Sancto to the turmoil caused by the multiplicity of perspectives on the Holy Spirit’s divinity was threefold. Firstly, Basil underscored that the full divinity of the Holy Spirit is a truth found in Scripture, to which liturgical language based on Scripture also was held by Basil to attest. Consequently, Basil began De Spiritu Sancto by criticizing his opponents’ misuse of liturgy and therefore their poor comprehension of Scripture that supported an undervaluation of the Holy Spirit’s divinity. Secondly, Basil highlighted the role of each person of the Trinity in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Basil argued, must all be fully divine if each Christian is baptised into the communion of all three members of the Trinity. Thirdly, St. Basil explored the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. According to Basil, the attribution of characteristics or titles to the Holy Spirit, as to the Father and the Son, does not negate the oneness of God.


The Importance of Scripture and Liturgical Tradition in De Spiritu Sancto

            Basil’s deference to Scripture in his affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s divinity was the most consistent feature of De Spiritu Sancto. In his essay on De Spiritu Sancto, focused on “the ‘Spiritual sense’ of Scripture in Basil’s treatise,”[53] Jaroslav Pelikan wrote that “it was precisely this ‘Spiritual sense’ of Scripture that was in contention between Basil and his critics,” who “insisted upon [Scriptural proof] for any doctrine of the Holy Spirit [while] they rejected any formula that did not meet this criterion.”[54] That Spiritual sense was often implicit in De Spiritu Sancto. Where Basil wrote explicitly about the unity in and equality of divinity of Father and Son, the Holy Spirit’s co-divinity with Father and Son was to be understood. Pelikan acknowledged that St. Basil’s “continuing preoccupation with the defence of the orthodox belief about the Son even in a book about the Spirit” was due to Basil’s “Christocentric interpretation of the doctrine of God as Trinity.” With this perspective, then, Basil insisted that “the naming of Christ is the confession of the whole Godhead.”[55]

Adversaries of Basil claimed “apostolic usage” of Scripture, and therefore insinuated that Basil was unfaithful to apostolic and liturgical tradition.[56] Basil responded that “diverse manners”[57] could be used in “speaking of Scripture.”[58] For example, although the phrase “through whom” is more common than “with whom” in Scripture to explain the relationship of the works of the Son to those of the Father- in other words, the Father is usually said to act through the Son and not with Him- it is still liturgically proper and a faithful interpretation of Scripture to describe the Son as acting with the Father. Moreover, Jesus is glorified both through and with the Father, as Basil interprets from Philippians 2:10-11, where Jesus is called “Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Liturgical extension of Scripture, then, allows Jesus to be described as one in Godhead both “with” and “through” the Father; Basil claimed that the first term affirms Jesus’ “proper dignity,” and the second “His grace toward us.”[59]

This assertion of the co-divinity of Father and Son from scripture and from liturgy, maintained Pelikan, was applied to the Holy Spirit by Basil by “disjunctive syllogism.”[60] Scripture and liturgy, said Basil, both support the worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If any of these were creatures and thus not divine, “it [would be] idolatry to pay…worship” to the Son, and, by extension, to the Spirit.[61] Thus, Basil cites Pauline writings that associate the spiritual gift of tongues to the singular “truth” of the Godhead, for example 1 Corinthians 14:20-25, to conclude “that in all things the Holy Spirit is inseparable and wholly incapable of being parted from the Father and the Son.”[62]

Pelikan and Stephen Hildebrand agree that, while St. Basil’s Scriptural exegesis differed from “modern practice,”[63] it was not mere proof-texting, wherein Scriptural reference becomes “an afterthought to support [one’s] conclusions.”[64] Jaroslav Pelikan cites from De Spiritu Sancto three manners in which Basil employed Scripture to support his claim that the Holy Spirit is fully divine.[65] Basil focused on Scripture passages that considered the “titles [ονόματα],” especially that of Lord,[66] conferred upon the Spirit as in 2 Corinthians 3:17,[67] as well as those that treated the Spirit’s “activities [ενεργειαι]” and “gifts [ενεργεσιαι].”[68] Hildebrand mentions two ways in which St. Basil interpreted Scripture, both of which were common in his time. The first was to establish the grammaticus of the text; a Scriptural passage could be interpreted differently, depending upon the punctuation and division of words.[69] For instance, John 1:3-4 could be read thus: “All things were made through [the Word] and without [the Word] nothing was made. That (which) was made in [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of [the world].” Such a reading would potentially have had an “Arian connotation”: [70] Life could have been understood to have come “to be in the Word”, thus implying that the Word was created. To refute an Arian Christology, the same passage could have been rendered: “All things were made through [the Word] and without [the Word] nothing was made that was made. In [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of [the world.]”[71] The second focus of Scriptural study among patristic exegetes like Basil was the methodikon, or linguistic analysis, whereby foreign words and linguistic style- poetic metre, figures of speech, and etymologies, for example- were explained.[72]


Basil’s Argument for the Co-divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from Scripture and Sacrament

Although St. Basil’s purpose was not in-depth critical exegesis of Scripture, his strongest argument for the co-divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was Biblical as well as Sacramental. Basil’s case leaned on the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These verses, Basil contended, were evidence from Scripture of the equal glory of each person of the Trinity. Passages like Galatians 3:27 that indicate baptism into Christ without mention of the Spirit, or like Acts 1:5 that refers only to the Spirit, nevertheless imply the presence of all three persons of the Trinity; according to Basil “the separation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is perilous to the baptizer and of no advantage to the baptized.”[73] St. Basil concluded that, through baptism, each Christian is “[introduced] to the knowledge of God,” who is the essential unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[74]



The Trinity as Ontological Communion

This unity and equality in divinity of the three persons of the Trinity, says Dennis Ngien, is crucial to the understanding of Basilian Trinitarian doctrine. Basil saw the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an ontological communion, as opposed to an arithmetic relationship in which the persons of the Trinity could be ranked or separated from one another.[75] Therefore, although Basil’s education exposed him to Platonic ideas including the multiplicity of gods, he was not a Platonist.[76] To Basil, one must speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “the Unity” and as “conjoined.”[77] As per Ngien, in Basil’s theology “God’s being as communion [excluded] any unipersonal view of God or tritheistic conception of Holy Trinity, but magnifies an onto-relational dynamism of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the one living Being of God.”[78]



 Basil’s expansion in De Spiritu Santo of Nicene Christology, wherein the Father and the Son were held to be equally divine, into a consideration of God as Trinity and the place of the Holy Spirit within the one Godhead laid the foundation for the Council of Constantinople that took place two years after Basil’s death. The teaching of St. Basil was grounded in Scripture and Apostolic, liturgical, and Sacramental tradition. Basil was therefore a central contributor to the acceptance of the co-divinity of the Holy Spirit in a century that began with widespread confusion over the nature of the Son in relationship to the Father. Within eighty-one years, Constantinople had accepted Basil’s view of the Godhead as the ontological communion of three persons with distinct attributes.


[1] Laurie Guy, Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs, and Practices (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 268. 

[2] Everett Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, Church History 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 194.

[3] Guy, Introducing Early Christianity, 281.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Paul J. Fedwick, “A Chronology of the Life and Works of Basil of Caesarea,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 17.

[6] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 199-208.

[7] Yves Congar, The River of the Water of Life Flows in the East and in the West, I Believe in the Holy Spirit 1, tr. David Smith (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 19-28.

[8] Milton V. Anastos, “Basil`s Κατα Ευνομιου: A Critical Analysis,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 70.

[9] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 202.

[10] James Hanrahan, St. Basil the Great: A Life with Excerpts from His Works (Toronto: The Basilian Press, 1979), 150-151.

[11] Basil, “De Spiritu Sancto,” 18.44-47. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[12] John Behr, “The Trinitarian Theology of St. Basil of Caesarea.” Theology%20of%20St.%20Basil%20of%20Caesarea%20-%20Web%20Version%202008.pdf.  Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 209-210.

[15] Hanrahan, St. Basil the Great: A Life with Excerpts from His Works, 214.

[16] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 178.

[17] Ibid, 179.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid, 181.

[22] Ibid, 183.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid, 184.

[25] Ibid, 183.

[26] Guy, Introducing Early Christianity, 270.

[27] Ibid, 268.

[28] Ibid, 270.

[29] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 193.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid, 196.

[32] Ibid, 194.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., 195.

[37] Guy, Introducing Early Christianity, 273.

[38] Ibid., 275.

[39] Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, 207.

[40] Ibid., 200.

[41] Ibid., 207-208.

[42] Ibid., 202-203.

[43] Ibid., 202.

[44] Ibid., 203.

[45] Ibid., 206.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., 202.

[48] Ibid., 203.

[49] Ibid., 207.

[50] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 30.77. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[51] Ibid., 1.3.

[52] Hanrahan, St. Basil the Great, 150-151.

[53] Jaroslav Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for St. Basil’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981), 338.

[54] Ibid., 339.

[55] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 12.28. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[56] Ibid., 340.

[57] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 7.16. Cited in Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture,” note 17, 340.

[58] Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture,” 340.

[59] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 8.17. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[60] Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture,” 342.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 16.37. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[63] Stephen M. Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 103.

[64] Richard M. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1989), 166.

[65] Pelikan, “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture,” 343.

[66] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 21.52. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[67] Ibid., 344.

[68] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 23.54. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[69] Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea, 103-105.

[70] Ibid., 105.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Ibid., 106.

[73] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 12.28. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[74] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 29.75. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[75] Dennis Ngien, Gifted Response: The Triune God as the Causative Agent of our Responsive Worship (Milton Keynes, UK/Colorado Springs/ Hyderabad: Paternoster, 2008), 1-34.

[76] Hildebrand, The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea, 114-115.

[77] Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 18.45. Accessed 25 November, 2009.

[78] Ngien, Gifted Response, 34.

2 Responses to “St. Basil and the Development of Pneumatology in the Fourth Century”

  1. 9vm2n at 11:22 am #



  1. HCG Levels in Early Pregnancy -

    HCG Levels in Early Pregnancy Thanks for writing this, it was very handy and helped me quite a bit…

    Thanks for writing this, it was very handy and helped me quite a bit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: