Basil states that “the faith in the Spirit is the same as the faith in the Father and the Son; and in like manner, too, the baptism.” This is to say that Basil believes, based on scripture that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equal, and in baptism this theology is clearly shown. It would be less than perfect to baptize someone into only the Father, as the triune Godhead cannot and should not be separated. His opponents countered this argument by suggesting that because Christians are baptized into water, people should “give it a share of the honour of the Father and of the Son.” This is absurd on a number of levels, but Basil argues that “if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit” in the baptismal process. He argues that the water is not the substance that transforms the believers, but instead it is “the presence of the Spirit” that should be exalted. Just as Christians praise God the Father, “it is the same to say glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost,” because they are unified and triune in nature and in …show more content…
The word unbegotten “is nowhere to be found in Scripture,” but it implies that the Son has no origin, just like the Father. The meaning of unbegotten “is the having no origin from without,” because an all-powerful God could not at any point in nature have not existed. Eunomius, in trying to subservient the Son makes Jesus into less than God by “alienating the Only Begotten from the Father, and altogether cutting Him off from communion with Him. In doing this, Eunomius deprives people “of the ascent of knowledge which is made through the Son,” which is clearly heresy. Basil proves that the “essence of Begetter and Begotten is identical,” and by doing this He defends the deity and majesty of