@slimboyfat
The claim that the Bible identifies the Father as the "one
God" without reference to a triune nature oversimplifies the text and
ignores the broader biblical context. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul does indeed
say, "for us there is but one God,
the Father," but he immediately continues, "and
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we
live." It is no coincidence that you closed your eyes at the
second half of the verse, such a heretical eisegesis requires such a
mechanical, distorting reading. Paul here identifies the Father as the
"one God" and Jesus Christ as the "one Lord." This reflects
the Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God,
the LORD [YHWH] is one”) but reinterprets it in light of Christ’s relationship
to the Father. The Shema emphasizes monotheism, and Paul upholds this while
including Jesus within the divine identity:
- The
Father is the source of all creation (“from whom are all things”).
- The
Son is the agent of creation (“through whom are all things”).
This does not divide God into two beings but shows that the Father
and the Son share the divine essence, fulfilling distinct roles within the
Godhead. Paul is clearly
reinterpreting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our
God, the LORD is one") in light of Jesus. He divides the Shema’s
monotheistic confession into two parts: the Father as "one God" and
Jesus as "one Lord." This does not contradict monotheism but expands
it to include Jesus within the divine identity. The Shema’s “one Lord” (YHWH)
is here applied to Jesus, while “one God” (YHWH) is applied to the Father. This
is not a denial of Jesus’ divinity but a rearticulation of Jewish monotheism to
incorporate Jesus as divine. In doing so, he reinterprets the Shema
within a Christological framework, assigning to Jesus the divine role of
Creator and Sustainer. Far from excluding Jesus from divinity, Paul’s language
includes Him within the identity of the one God, showing an early development
of Trinitarian theology.
Paul does not exclude Jesus from being fully divine; instead, he
includes Jesus in the unique identity of YHWH. Isaiah 44:24 declares that YHWH
alone created the universe: “I am the LORD [YHWH], who made all things, who
alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” However, in
1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul attributes creation to both the Father and the Son,
saying that "all things" came "from" the Father and
"through" the Son. This dual attribution is incompatible with the
idea that Jesus is merely a creature, as YHWH explicitly states He did it
alone.
Paul’s distinction between the Father and the Son in 1 Corinthians
8:6 does not imply a denial of the Trinity. Instead, it reflects the relational
roles within the Godhead. The Father as the source, the Son as the agent, and
elsewhere, the Spirit as the sustainer (cf. Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4). These
distinctions do not divide God into separate beings but describe the harmonious
operation of the one God in creation and redemption.
The title “one Lord” (heis Kyrios) is significant. In Deuteronomy
6:4 (LXX), the Shema declares that YHWH is “one Lord” (Kyrios heis). Paul’s
deliberate use of this title for Jesus identifies Him with YHWH, the God of
Israel. This is not merely a title of authority but a claim to divine identity. Paul’s language reflects a distinction
between the Father and the Son without dividing them into separate beings. This
aligns with Trinitarian theology, which affirms one God in three persons. The
Father and the Son are distinct persons but share the same divine essence. Far
from contradicting the Trinity, 1 Corinthians 8:6 provides evidence for the
relational distinction within the Godhead while maintaining the unity of God.
The context of Galatians 3:20 is Paul’s discussion of the role of
the law and the promise made to Abraham. So the context is not a doctrinal discussion about
the nature of God but about the role of a mediator in the covenant. Paul
contrasts the giving of the Mosaic Law, which involved a mediator (Moses), with
the promise given to Abraham directly by God. Paul’s point is that the promise
to Abraham was made unilaterally by God, without the need for a mediator,
because "God is one." This phrase emphasizes God’s unity and direct
action in fulfilling His promises, not a denial of relational distinctions
within the Godhead. Paul contrasts the giving of the law, mediated
by angels (and Moses), with the promise, which was given directly by God. His
point is that God, unlike human agreements requiring mediators, acts
unilaterally in fulfilling His promise to Abraham. The phrase "God is
one" (ho theos heis estin) reaffirms monotheism, consistent with
Deuteronomy 6:4, but it does not address whether God exists as a single person.
Instead, it emphasizes God’s unity and faithfulness in contrast to human systems
of mediation. · The statement "God is one" in
Galatians 3:20 reflects the Jewish monotheistic confession of Deuteronomy 6:4.
It affirms God’s unity but says nothing about the internal relational
distinctions within the Godhead. The claim that this verse denies the Trinity
is a category error, as it conflates the unity of God (His essence) with the
concept of personhood (relational distinctions within the Godhead).
The Greek word for “one” (heis) does not inherently mean “one
person.” It denotes unity or singularity. For example, in John 10:30: Jesus
says, “I and the Father are one [hen],” signifying unity of essence, not
singularity of personhood. In Genesis 2:24 (LXX) a husband and wife become “one
flesh” (mia sarx). This does not mean they are one person but that they are
united in essence and purpose. Trinitarian theology does not deny that God is
one; it affirms that the one God exists as three distinct persons. The unity of
God refers to His essence, while the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit pertains to their relational roles.
In His incarnate state, Jesus voluntarily submitted to the
Father’s will (Philippians 2:6-8). This submission reflects His role in
redemption, not an ontological inferiority. For example, John 5:19-23 shows
both Jesus’ dependence on the Father and His equality with the Father. Jesus
does nothing of His own accord (v. 19) but is entrusted with all judgment (v.
22) so that “all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (v. 23). To
honor the Son in the same way as the Father would be blasphemy unless the Son
shares the Father’s divine nature. The distinction between Father, Son, and
Spirit pertains to their roles, not their essence. The Father sends, the Son
redeems, and the Spirit sanctifies. These roles are complementary, not
hierarchical.
Your objection that the Bible never uses the term
"persons" to describe God misunderstands the theological terminology.
The term "persons" (hypostasis,
subsistentia, supossitum) was developed by the Church Fathers to
articulate the biblical data about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible
presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct yet fully divine. For
instance, in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands baptism
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The singular "name" (not "names") implies unity, while the
distinct references to Father, Son, and Spirit reflect their relational
distinctions. The term "persons" is used to describe this relationship
without compromising the essential unity of God.
This is like challenging a young child who is learning a language
as their mother tongue to explain that since they don't know the technical
terminology of grammatics (noun, adjective, verb, adverbs, etc.), they can't
know the language itself or the concept of language.
Your argument that the expression "the God and Jesus"
disproves Christ’s divinity is based on a false dichotomy. The Bible frequently
refers to Jesus alongside the Father, but this reflects their relational
distinction, not an ontological separation. For example, John 1:1 states,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." Here, "the Word was with God" distinguishes the Son
from the Father, while "the Word was God" affirms the Son’s full divinity.
This passage demonstrates the co-existence and unity of the Father and Son
within the divine nature.
The claim that "God" exclusively refers to the Father
misunderstands the flexibility of biblical language. While the New Testament
often uses "God" (Greek theos) to refer to the
Father, it also applies the term to the Son. Thomas addresses the risen Christ
as "My Lord and my God" (ho theos mou kai ho kyrios mou)
in John 20:28, and the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7, addressing the
Son: "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8).
These passages show that the title "God" is not restricted to the
Father but is shared by the Son within the context of Trinitarian theology.
Moreover, your suggestion that Trinitarians inconsistently apply
"God" to mean either the Father alone or the triune God
misunderstands how language operates within theological discourse. The term
"God" can refer to the Father as the source of divinity, to the Son
or Spirit when emphasizing their divine nature, or to the triune God
collectively. This flexibility reflects the richness of biblical revelation,
not inconsistency. Just as a single term like "humanity" can refer to
an individual person, a group, or the human race collectively, so too can
"God" be used in various contexts without contradiction.
Finally, your suggestion that the one who is not the Father cannot
be God fails to account for the relational dynamics presented in Scripture.
Jesus frequently refers to the Father as "my God" (e.g., John 20:17)
because, in His incarnation, He assumed a subordinate role as the mediator
between God and humanity. This relational subordination does not undermine His
divinity but reflects His role within the economy of salvation. The Son’s
submission to the Father is functional, not ontological, consistent with the
doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that the Father, Son, and Spirit are
co-equal in essence yet distinct in person.
@Earnest
The term "orthodox"
reflects the continuity of apostolic teaching, rooted in Scripture and the
witness of the early Church Fathers. Even in the first three centuries, there
was a recognized core of Christian belief that distinguished orthodoxy from
heresy (e.g., Irenaeus' Against Heresies explicitly defends apostolic teaching against Gnostic distortions).
Early councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and writings of
early Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr) demonstrate a clear effort
to preserve and define the faith handed down from the apostles.
The
diversity of early Christian movements does not imply equivalence in
theological validity. Groups like the Gnostics or Ebionites deviated from
apostolic teaching, often rejecting core tenets such as the divinity of Christ
or the resurrection. These deviations were not “alternate Christianities” but
distortions of the original faith. Walter Bauer’s thesis, cited by Earnest, has
been heavily critiqued. Scholars such as Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham
have demonstrated that orthodox belief in Christ’s divinity and the Trinity
existed from the earliest stages of Christianity, even if terminology developed
over time.
Bart Ehrman’s The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Adolf von Harnack’s
works are heavily criticized for imposing modern skepticism on ancient sources.
They often assume textual corruption or theological evolution where continuity
is evident. Edward Gibbon’s The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is notorious for
its Enlightenment-era anti-Christian bias, portraying the Church as politically
motivated rather than spiritually guided. These authors selectively focus on
outlier groups or speculative reconstructions, neglecting the overwhelming
evidence of continuity in apostolic teaching.
Bauer’s claim that what became “heresy” was often the original
form of Christianity is speculative and unsupported by evidence from regions
like Antioch, Alexandria, or Rome, where apostolic teaching was preserved and
affirmed. Scholars such as Andreas Köstenberger and Craig Evans have shown that
Bauer’s arguments rely on isolated examples and ignore the broader unity of
early Christian belief in Christ’s divinity.
@peacefulpete
The concept of the Logos in Christianity is
fundamentally different from Philo’s philosophical Logos. John’s Gospel
identifies the Logos as fully divine and incarnate in Jesus Christ (John 1:1,
14). The Logos is not an “emanation” or a “mini me” of God but the Second
Person of the Trinity, fully sharing the divine essence (homoousios) with the
Father. Philo’s Logos functioned as an abstract intermediary, whereas John
presents the Logos as a personal, relational, and incarnate God. Early Church
Fathers, such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, engaged with Hellenistic thought
but firmly grounded their theology in the biblical revelation of the Logos as
both fully divine and fully human.
Adoptionism denies the
preexistence of Christ and contradicts clear biblical passages affirming His
eternal nature and divinity (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20). It was
rejected by the Church because it failed to account for the full revelation of Christ
as both God and man. The virgin birth narratives (Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:35) and
other Gospel accounts were not “additions” to refute Adoptionism but part of
the original apostolic witness to Christ’s divine and human natures.
Docetism,
which claimed that Jesus only “seemed” to be human, was explicitly condemned in
Scripture (1 John 4:2-3) and by early Church Fathers. It undermines the reality
of the Incarnation, which is central to Christian soteriology. The Gospel
accounts of Jesus eating, suffering, and dying (e.g., Luke 24:39, John 19:34)
are consistent with His full humanity and divinity. These details are not
“proto-orthodox adjustments” but essential to the apostolic proclamation of the
Gospel.
The Trinity doctrine is not a 4th-century invention but a faithful
articulation of biblical teaching. Passages such as Matthew 28:19, 2
Corinthians 13:14, and John 14:16-17 reveal the triune nature of God. The
doctrine’s development reflected the Church’s effort to defend the apostolic
faith against heretical distortions, not to “harmonize” conflicting views. Far
from being “blasphemous” to Jews, the Trinity is rooted in the monotheism of
the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the messianic expectations fulfilled in Jesus
(Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:13-14). Early Jewish Christians like Paul affirmed this
understanding (Philippians 2:6-11, Romans 9:5).
The New Testament itself reflects early and sophisticated
Christological reflection. Paul’s letters (e.g., Colossians 1:15-20) and the
Gospel of John provide a high Christology that became the foundation for later
doctrinal developments. Early Christian worship practices, such as baptism “in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)
and hymns like Philippians 2:6-11, demonstrate that Christians were deeply
concerned with the nature of Christ from the beginning.