synergy
Active Member
Interesting. Thanks for sharing all that.My Comment: “One God, the Father; One Lord, the Son” — Scripture, Greek, Fathers, and History
Preface (my stance): I hold to a functional Trinity, not an ontological one. The Father is the Source and Origin; the Son is the Mediator, Heir, and Lord; the Spirit is the Breath and Power. I respect Nicene theology as a venerable opinion, but I will not bind extra-biblical metaphysics as dogma. I aim not to go beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6).
1) The controlling apostolic text: 1 Corinthians 8:6
- ἐξ οὗ marks origin/source (the Father). δι’ οὗ marks instrument/mediation (the Son).
- Paul preserves real unity with functional distinction: God = the Father (Source); Lord = Jesus (Mediator).
- This aligns with the eschatological finale in 1 Cor 15:24–28: the Son reigns as Heir, conquers death, and hands the Kingdom back to the Father “that God may be all in all.”
Implication: The language of inheritance and bestowal (Kingdom, Name, authority) means derivation and hence dependence: what is received is not self-originated.
2) The inheritance/name/subjection chain
- Heir: “whom He appointed heir of all things” (Heb 1:2); “the Father has given all things into His hand” (Jn 3:35); we are “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17).
- The Name above all: “God exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name” (Phil 2:9). The supreme Name is given, not seized.
- All authority: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18).
- Derived life: “As the Father has life in Himself, so He granted the Son to have life in Himself” (Jn 5:26).
- Final act: “Then the end, when He hands over the Kingdom to the God and Father… then the Son Himself will be subject… that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:24–28).
Conclusion: Christ’s glory is real and supreme, yet derived. He reigns as Heir, not as self-existent Source.
3) Greek exegesis of the main “deity” texts (why more than one translation is possible)
John 1:1c — καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
- Anarthrous predicate before the verb; classic analysis (Harner) favors a qualitative sense: “the Word was divine/of God’s nature,” not necessarily an identity statement (“the Word was [numerically identical with] God”). The verse exalts the Logos without, by grammar alone, settling a later ontological formula.
John 10:30 — ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν
- ἕν is neuter (“one [thing/reality]”), not masculine (“one person”). It signals unity (of will/operation; some argue “of essence”), without collapsing persons. John 17:21 uses identical oneness language for the disciples—clearly functional unity.
Hebrews 1:8 (Ps 45:6 LXX) — ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός…
- Two grammatically legitimate renderings: vocative (“Your throne, O God”) vs nominative (“God is your throne”). Tradition prefers the vocative; yet the very next verse (1:9) keeps the hierarchy: “God, your God, has anointed you.” Either way, the Father remains over the Son.
Titus 2:13 — τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
- If Granville Sharp applies strictly: “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (one referent). Many reputable scholars accept this. Others read the structure/context as distinguishing “the glory of our great God” and our “Savior Jesus Christ.” Grammatically debated; not a knock-down ontological proof on its own.
Romans 9:5
- The punctuation (not original) decides between “Christ, who is God over all” vs a doxology: “God who is over all be blessed forever.” Both have heavyweight defenders; the text is weighty but not singularly decisive.
Colossians 2:9 — πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
- θεότης (in Col 2:9) vs θειότης (Rom 1:20): the former often translated “deity/divine nature,” the latter “divinity.” Even so, debate remains whether Paul states ontological identity or functional fullness (God’s fullness dwelling in the Son). The lexeme itself does not force a post-biblical essence formula.
Also note
- Phil 2:6 — ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων… ἁρπαγμὸν οὐχ ἡγήσατο often read as not exploiting equality; yet readings vary (“form of God,” status, representation).
- John 20:28 — Thomas’ address “my Lord and my God” can be doxological; it honors the risen Christ with divine address without necessarily fixing an ontological treatise.
- Col 1:15 — πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως: “firstborn of all creation” (genitive often partitive). Even when rendered “over all creation,” the verse still signals priority and derivation (He is from God before all; the Image through whom creation comes).
Takeaway: The NT undeniably employs God-language for the Son; yet multiple “proof” texts are grammatically elastic, allowing robust functional readings without committing to a later, non-biblical homoousios ontology.
4) Fathers before Nicaea (patristic witness)
- Ignatius of Antioch speaks of “our God, Jesus Christ” (e.g., Eph. 18.2), showing very early high Christology. At the same time, he preserves the priority of the Father and the Son’s from-ness (begotten of God).
- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen: all honor the Son as divine, pre-existent, agent of creation. Yet their language often keeps the Father as fount/source and the Son as from the Father (begotten/Word/Wisdom).
- The Didache (late 1st c.) commands baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; a triune liturgical pattern, without metaphysical terms like ousia or homoousios.
Therefore: It would be unreasonable to brand the pre-Nicene Fathers or the Didache “heretical” merely for not using homoousios. They confessed a high, functional Christology long before imperial metaphysics.
5) On
- Not in Scripture.
- Rejected at Antioch (AD 268) in the Paul of Samosata case (due to Sabellian/material connotations).
- Introduced at Nicaea (AD 325) under Emperor Constantine, who sought political-ecclesial unity; he was not yet baptized and worked closely with Hosius of Corduba. The term’s ambiguity was noted even by pro-Nicenes; its content was contested for decades.
- I respect homoousios as a guardrail against Arian reduction, but I cannot elevate it to apostolic dogma. It violates my rule not to go beyond what is written.
6) My positive confession (without metaphysical overreach)
- I honor Jesus as Lord, Savior, pre-existent Word/Wisdom, Agent of creation, Heir of all, the One in whom all the fullness dwells, who receives the Name above every name, and to whom every knee bows.
- Yet I keep the Father as one God, the Source (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 1:17).
- I also affirm —this is my understanding— that “only-begotten” and “firstborn” indicate causality/derivation from the Father. He is uniquely originated from the Father (if one prefers “created directly,” I mean uniquely, directly originated by Him), exalted above all, yet always from and for the Father. I present this humbly, not as a test of fellowship.
7) Eschatological seal: the Kingdom handed back (1 Cor 15:24–28)
At the close of the millennial reign (cf. Rev 20), Christ hands over the Kingdom to the Father; the Father remains excepted from subjection; and “the Son Himself will be subject… that God may be all in all.” This consummation confirms the pattern: the Son’s reign is real and supreme, yet derived and obedient. Inheritance implies dependence; the final act is filial subjection, not ontological equivalence.
8) Conclusion (Scripture’s own balance)
- One God: the Father (Source).
- One Lord: Jesus Christ (Mediator/Heir).
- One Spirit: the Breath/Power of God.
I respect those who confess homoousios; I take it as a respected theological opinion, not apostolic dogma. My conscience is bound to Scripture: I will say all that it says about Christ —no less— and I will not force it to say what later metaphysics claims —no more.
And at the end, as Paul wrote: the Son will hand the Kingdom to the Father, and God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:24–28).
Let me add what should be obvious: neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles, nor the earliest Church orders (the Didache), nor the great pre-Nicene Fathers made homoousios the boundary of communion. To retroactively require a post-biblical neologism as the shibboleth of orthodoxy would absurdly anathematize Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian—indeed the whole pre-Nicene Church—for not using a word they never received from Scripture. This violates the apostolic rule itself: “do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6). For that reason I can respect homoousios as a venerable opinion (a historically later hedge against Arian reduction) while refusing to elevate it to dogma that binds consciences.
I hold on more to an ontological Trinity understanding - a "who they are" understanding, not just a "what they do" understanding, though that is vitally important. Among many reasons, one reason I say that is because I've been researching the Biblical word εἰκών (Icon) for a little while now. Permit me to describe, as best as I possibly can, that word in English terms:
In Scripture, the meaning of the Greek word εἰκών encompasses the living intersection between the Uncreated and the created. In the Biblical context, the icon describes how the Uncreated God reveals Himself through the created form. The concept of the icon touches the heart of the Gospel — the Incarnation, redemption, and the destiny of humanity in Christ.
As God, Jesus Christ is The Icon (εἰκών) of the Invisible God (the Father), the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15). He is the Exact Imprint of God's Nature (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus Christ is the perfect and full manifestation of God, being by nature and by person God himself. In Him, as God, the Uncreated enters into the created, and through His human body and life, the eternal God is revealed in Jesus. In his Incarnation was Spirit and matter united without confusion, the Eternal Word taking on flesh.
As Believers we are all predestined to be conformed to be icons εἰκών of His Son (Romans 8:29). As Jesus is The Icon of the Father, in like matter we are predestined to be icons of Christ. This means our destiny is not simply moral improvement, but transformation into vessels of divine glory, partakers of the Divine Nature. The Christian life is about becoming a visible manifestation of Christ through union with Him. Through the Spirit, we become a revelation of the Uncreated Spirit within creation, bearing the divine life in our humanity.
Because we are in Christ, we too become places where the Uncreated God reveals Himself. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, our created humanity is partly transfigured now, to be fully transfigured in our future resurrection. As members of Christ’s Body, we become windows into heaven, not by our own strength, but by Grace — matter infused with Spirit as icons of Jesus, time permeated by eternity.
On Mount Tabor, Jesus was transfigured before His disciples: His face shone like the sun, and even His clothes became white as light (Matthew 17:2). Read that again: even his clothes became white as light. All matter, in general, is transfigurable. This was not just a preview of His resurrection, but a revelation of what it means that He is The Icon of God.
In summary, an icon is a living revelation of the Uncreated God through created reality. Jesus is the perfect Icon of the Father, making God fully visible in human form. As Believers we are predestined to become icons of Christ, filled with His Spirit, transformed by grace. Christ and His Body (the Church) are the intersection of the Uncreated and the created. The icon reveals that our final destiny is not escape from creation, but all of creation's transfiguration, where matter is made radiant with divine glory.
This I believe touches the very heart of the Gospel: not only that God became man in Christ, but that in Him, humanity itself is lifted up, filled with the divine, and made a vessel of the eternal as icons of Christ. In Christ, and through the Spirit, we become icons — living revelations of God to the world.