Father is "True God" in Scripture, though Son is God also

[younglite]

For the first several centuries, the New Testament writers and early writers declared the unveiling of the Son from His Father, the one true God. They also declared that the Son was God, too, for what is begotten of God, is God. But in later centuries, there was a overreaction to heresy, so the Son began to be elevated to be co-equal with God, the Father.

I am curious as to why we haven't gone back to the teachings before this overreaction? Why are Christians, theologians, professors, etc. afraid to just let Scripture and the early writings speak for themselves? Is it because there is something that doesn't feel right about making Jesus "less?"

You don't get much closer to the original source than the disciples of the apostles. These writings have been copied in Latin, Syriac, Greek and other languages. They clearly distinguish themselves in their writings from the heretical arguments of the gnostics, and many are referenced/endorsed by the later church fathers. They are reliable and should be considered heavily when determining what the writers of the NT were trying to say.

What did the disciples of the apostles believe?

Clement of Rome (disciple of Paul and Peter, died in 99AD). Origen says he is the Clement of Phil 4:3 [Commentary, John 1:29]. His writing is the earliest outside of the NT writings (80-140 AD). Note that he prays to God the Father directly, through the Son. He tells God that He is God alone and is the Highest, and does His work through his Son, Jesus Christ.

1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty... and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son...

verse 4 (next verse)
Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son...


Ignatius (disciple of Peter and John, died 108 AD)

I long after the Lord, the Son of the true God and Father, even Jesus Christ.
(Ignatius to the Romans, chapter VI)

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.
(Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII)

He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens...
(Ignatius to the Romans, chapter VI)

Polycarp (disciple of John, died 155 AD)
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest (I Tim 2:5 makes a similar statement) himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...
(Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, 12:2)

Before we even get out of the gate to later disciples, the direct disciples of the Apostles teach that the Father is true God. They also state that Jesus is God, too, but only the Father is true God and/or Most High God. This theme is carried on in the writings for the next few hundred years right up to the formation of the Nicean Creed. If you truly consider their teachings, then it helps when you are reading Scripture...

John 3:33-35 and John 5:43-44: Jesus refers to the Father as the “only God.”

John 17:3 – Only true God is Whom Jesus is talking to. (see also John 5:44)

1 Thess 1:9-10 – True God and His Son (also see John 3:33, 5:44 and John 17:3)

1 John 5:20 – God is the true God, depicted in the Son – very clear Who is truly God and Who is Son

I Tim 1:17 and Jude 25 – The Father is the only God.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Eph4:6, Gal 3:20, 1 Tim 2:5, 1 John 5:20 – One God, the Father

Col 3:10 – Jesus is the image, created by God (see 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15, 1 John 5:20)

Rev 3:14 – Jesus is the beginning of creation

Of course, this goes against what we are taught about the Trinity today, so we outright disregard the evidence of their writings. Sad. We should believe what we read, not read what we believe.

 

[Albion]

For the first several centuries, the New Testament writers and early writers declared the unveiling of the Son from His Father, the one true God. They also declared that the Son was God, too, for what is begotten of God, is God. But in later centuries, there was a overreaction to heresy, so the Son began to be elevated to be co-equal with God, the Father.

It seems to me that if you believe that there is but ONE God, you can neither promote nor demote anyone who's identified in Scripture as God. He's God. That's all.

I am curious as to why we haven't gone back to the teachings before this overreaction? Why are Christians, theologians, professors, etc. afraid to just let Scripture and the early writings speak for themselves? Is it because there is something that doesn't feel right about making Jesus "less?"

I'd say that it's precisely because they DO go by the Scriptural evidence, which so strongly and repeatedly testifies to Jesus being God. It's easy to speculate on the meaning of the many and different terms and names that are applied to God in Scripture, and that kind of guesswork is something that we should be on guard against.

 

[Achilles6129]

The Bible teaches that the Son is equal to the Father. See Jn. 1:1, etc.

 

[younglite]

It seems to me that if you believe that there is but ONE God, you can neither promote nor demote anyone who's identified in Scripture as God. He's God. That's all.

The hardest part of understanding the Trinity is using the word “God.” When Scripture uses the term, it mostly refers to the Father, not the Son or Spirit. But just because this is true doesn't mean that the Son and Spirit are not God. The difference is that they are the substance of Him, therefore they can rightfully claim to be God in essence, as well. But they cannot claim to be God the Father, for He is the only true, unbegotten God, while the Son and Spirit were begotten and brought forth respectively.

This is how Jesus wasn't talking to Himself when He spoke with God. He wasn't a schizophrenic god speaking with himself. As the father-son imagery suggests, He was the Son (begotten of the essence of His Father) speaking with His Father, who is true, unbegotten God.

So when we say Jesus is God, it means He shares the same “God substance,” making Him God. When a man begets a child, the baby is not something other than a man. When a animal begets, it begets its own kind. When God begets – and He did it only once – He begets His own substance, which means the Son is materially “God.”

So there are two meanings of “God.” One is true God, who is the Father, the Source of all else. And the other is His substance which came from His bosom – His own Son, and later the Spirit brought forth, who both are also “God.”

Interchanging the word God is where modern Christians get confused and have to have awkwardly prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same. They are not all the same. According to the Nicean Creed, there is only one God, the Father. But because He materially begat a Son, and later brought forth the Spirit from his own essence, they can rightfully be called God. This is how the Trinity was understood for hundreds of years. It wasn't until later that there was a blurring the lines between the three in the Godhead. This blurring took place as a reaction to heresies, which causes most of our confusion today in trying to explain it.

 

[younglite]

The Bible teaches that the Son is equal to the Father. See Jn. 1:1, etc.

Origen's theology of the Trinity was revered by the later church fathers. Even by Athanasius, who was aggressively opposed to Arius' teachings (and rightfully so.) I'll let him speak for himself. Here is what Origen says on John 1:1...

"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe between God with the article and God without it prevail also between the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the God who is over all is God with the article not without it, so the Logos is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of theFather, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, John 17:3 That they may know You the only true God;but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth. It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is The God, and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father."
(Origen's commentary on John, Book II, section 2)

 

[Albion]

So there are two meanings of “God.” One is true God, who is the Father, the Source of all else. And the other is His substance which came from His bosom – His own Son, and later the Spirit brought forth, who both are also “God.”

I was with you on the first part of your explanation, but if you are now describing the Son (or the Holy Ghost) as originating at some point in time, that's wrong.

 

[younglite]

Yes, I was waiting for that one. Believing Christ had a beginning is the largest hurdle in believing the church fathers. But unlike your quote, He was not born "at some point in time." He was birthed before time, which is where the modern teaching of "eternal generation" or "eternally begotten" comes from. It was called eternal because His beginning took place before the foundations of the earth. Sadly, the teaching of "eternal" has changed to mean he had no beginning at all.

And here is where you will dismiss the whole of their teachings: They taught that He was both born and unborn. Yes, I know. this threw me for a loop, too. Don't shoot the messenger. I'll try to be brief in explaining, then let you read their words for yourself. Essentially, they taught that God's Word [Reason] was within Him always, counseling Him as He planned all things before beginning the actualization of those plans. The Word, Logos, Reason, Power, Wisdom (and a host of other descriptive words) was within the Father for eternity before time. Then at some point before time began, God birthed the Word outwardly as His own Son without losing His own Reason and Wisdom. This is what is known as the beginning of all creation.

I warn you, you can either believe what you read, or try to force your belief into the reading.

Ignatius (disciple of Peter and John, died 108 AD)
"There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII, section 2)

Justin Martyr
"the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created;
(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 129)

Theophilus of Antioch (first to coin the phrase "Trinity')
"God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things."
(Book 2, chap X)

Irenaeus of Lyons (disciple of Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John)
"If any one, therefore, says to us, "How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation...
...they (the gnostics) nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth, thus assimilating Him to the word of mankind formed by emissions.)
(Book 2, chapter XXVIII, section 6, see 5 also for context)

There are scores more, but I'll leave you with those. It sheds quite the light on the Scriptures...

Romans 8:29, Col 1:15 and 18, Heb 1:6, Rev 1:5, Rev 3:14 – firstborn of all creation indicates that Jesus was made from the essence of God before all time.

 

[Albion]

I have to confess that those quotes carry almost no weight in this discussion. They neither establish the mind of the first Christians or of the Apostles or show any continuity of belief or replace the testimony of Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have a problem with what your are saying, Younglite. You seem to be saying, in effect, that teh Son inherits the Father's DNA. OK, fine, but that gives us two gods here, not one. So how does that help understand the Trinity?

 

[younglite]

I have to confess that those quotes carry almost no weight in this discussion. They neither establish the mind of the first Christians or of the Apostles or show any continuity of belief or replace the testimony of Scripture.

Hmm...interesting. These are the first Christians. But you believe the teachings from much later generations (mostly taught today) more so than the teachings of the immediate disciples of the Apostles? And you don't believe the Nicean Creed?

 

[younglite]

I have a problem with what your are saying, Younglite. You seem to be saying, in effect, that teh Son inherits the Father's DNA. OK, fine, but that gives us two gods here, not one. So how does that help understand the Trinity?

Deut 10:7 and Ps 136:2 tells us God is the God of gods. The early church fathers taught that anything that can rationalize is considered an image of God, or "god." This includes men (John 10:35 and Ps 82:6). We don't use the term god to describe people today, but it was very common in the entire era of the Bible (think Egyptians, Greeks, etc).

But there are only two beings that are of the same substance as the God of gods. That is the begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. All else is created from nothing. Since they are of His substance, they can rightfully claim to be God, in essence. This is the trinity - the True God, the Father, the Son of His essence, and the Spirit brought forth from the Father and Son. But when speaking of one Most High God, the early church writers were clear that this was only applicable to the only unbegotten God, the Father Himself.

 

[Hoghead1]

It seems like you are saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three unique personalities. So how is there one God? Also, what church writers and writings do you have in mind here? Certainly the Trinitarians did not say that.

 

[Albion]

Hmm...interesting. These are the first Christians.

Far from it! They are early, but they do not show us the mind of the first Christians, and the whole idea of tradition is continuity from the beginning forward, not just "these were a long time ago."

But you believe the teachings from much later generations (mostly taught today) more so than the teachings of the immediate disciples of the Apostles? And you don't believe the Nicean Creed?

What are you talking about?

 

[younglite]

Far from it!

Really? Paul, Peter and John's direct disciples are far from the first Christians? How so?

What are you talking about?

Most Trinitarians today draw their teaching from Augustinian theology. St. Augustine is the most influential theologian who shaped most of Western theology as we know it today. But He wrestled with his beliefs, and ventured away from what the earliest church fathers taught hundreds of years before him.

Textual criticism demands that the most reliable sources are those closest to the original and multiple copies and references to those copies. The NT has all other writings beat on all counts as far as textual criticism. The early writers are not to be considered inspired, but their writings are still crucial in understanding the details of what the NT writers were trying to say.

So basically what I am talking about (to answer your question) is that you hold to a belief formed a few hundred years later rather than trust the direct disciples of the Apostles.

...and the whole idea of tradition is continuity from the beginning forward, not just "these were a long time ago."

As shown above, you are the one believing the break in continuity of what was taught in Scripture and the earliest disciples. Your teachings draw from those who were a "long time ago," not the most reliable witnesses.

 

[younglite]

It seems like you are saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three unique personalities.

I am not saying anything. I am simply quoting the writings of those who were taught by the Apostles. But yes, they taught there are 3 different Beings who have the substance of God. God Himself, His Son, and His Spirit. What comprises the Trinity is not one God, so much as one Godhead, of which the One God is True God, and He birthed and brought forth out of His own substance the other two members of the Godhead. They clearly taught the Son and Spirit are not called God because they are co-equal, but because they are the only other beings that are actually from God's substance, which is why they can still be called God. But their identity as God is because of His substance, not because they are the same as He is. (See post #4 above for the confusing use of the word "God" in describing the Trinity.)

...what church writers and writings do you have in mind here?

The ones you know - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter. And ones you may or may not have heard of...Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagaros, Theophilus, Origen, Tertullian, Novatian, and others. If it were just one crazy writer, okay, well ignore the guy. But all of them lived just after the Apostles, but before the Nicean Council. And all of them were teaching pretty much the same exact thing, while fighting the gnostic heresies all around them. That's hard to ignore.

Certainly the Trinitarians did not say that.

I understand this is strange to your ears, as it will be to most. Modern Trinitarians will not say this. But the earliest ones I mentioned above did. Again, modern theology refuses to dwell on their teachings due to a later revised "orthodox" teaching that lifted Jesus up to being the same as the Father - a heresy in and of itself according to the earliest writers who believed in the Trinity and the One True God who was the Source of the Trinity.

Read Novation's writing on the Trinity, and then see if it makes any sense - not make sense to what you've heard before, but make sense in light of what I have been posting.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iii.xii.html

 

[younglite]

So what's wrong with this picture? It's interesting that modern theology textbooks acknowledge that earlier "True God" Trinity orthodoxy is ignored in favor of the later "All are equal" Trinity orthodoxy.

Oxford Dictionary: Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries...” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319)

The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology: SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it [modern theology] does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (p. 321)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say on the origins of the concept of Trinity: "The formulation 'One God in 3 Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title 'the Trinitarian dogma'. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (1967 edition, volume 14, p. 299)

"With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (R.P.C. Hanson 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.xix.)

The quote above is mistaken in regards to Athanasius, but the point is still made. There was a clearly different Trinity theology for the first three centuries of Christianity. I was mad when I first began studying this years ago. I was seeking more understanding of God, and these teachings confused me even more. But after years of poring over these writings, I cannot deny that this was indeed the accepted teaching of the earliest believers. I also believe that it sheds light on confusing verses about whether Jesus is God or not. He is. He most definitely is. But not for the same reasons I was taught.

 

[Albion]

Really? Paul, Peter and John's direct disciples are far from the first Christians? How so?

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and such people are NOT "direct" disciples unless we are supposed to think that anyone living in the first couple of centuries after Christ are the first Christians.

Most Trinitarians today draw their teaching from Augustinian theology.

They may draw some of their explanation from Augustine and others, but the basis for the idea of the Trinity is right there in Scripture.

Your teachings draw from those who were a "long time ago," not the most reliable witnesses.

How the writers of the Gospels come off in your mind as unreliable witnesses, I can't figure.

And the comment about me not believing in the "Nicean (sic) Creed" comes from...who knows where?

 

[Der Alte]

So what's wrong with this picture? It's interesting that modern theology textbooks acknowledge that earlier "True God" Trinity orthodoxy is ignored in favor of the later "All are equal" Trinity orthodoxy.

Oxford Dictionary: Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries...” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319)

The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology: SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it [modern theology] does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (p. 321)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say on the origins of the concept of Trinity: "The formulation 'One God in 3 Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title 'the Trinitarian dogma'. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"

"With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (R.P.C. Hanson 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.xix.)

The quote above is mistaken in regards to Athanasius, but the point is still made. There was a clearly different Trinity theology for the first three centuries of Christianity. I was mad when I first began studying this years ago. I was seeking more understanding of God, and these teachings confused me even more. But after years of poring over these writings, I cannot deny that this was indeed the accepted teaching of the earliest believers. I also believe that it sheds light on confusing verses about whether Jesus is God or not. He is. He most definitely is. But not for the same reasons I was taught.

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia online says about the Trinity.

The Dogma of the Trinity-New Testament
The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step.
First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm​

 

[younglite]

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and such people are NOT "direct" disciples...

Seems you're only narrowing your focus to a few I mentioned, but ignoring the whole of my list. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp were also mentioned. They are direct disciples of Peter, Paul and John. The ones mentioned in your quote above are only once removed, so your claim that they are "far from it" (being the first Christians) is hardly accurate.

They may draw some of their explanation from Augustine and others, but the basis for the idea of the Trinity is right there in Scripture.

This is my exact point. You draw your explanations from sources "far from it," while I draw my explanations from direct disciples. We both are claiming to explain what Scripture means, so please don't demean our friendly debate by claiming you know what Scripture is actually saying. Especially since your explanation - not matter how popular today - is based on teachings that were promoted much later.

One of the main tenets of reliability in textual criticism is how close to the original teachings are the subsequent writings. There isn't an honest observer, much less any scholar, who would deny that the best way to find the truth in a court of law is to have eyewitnesses. My "case" for the explanation has those eyewitnesses. Yours doesn't. That's not arrogance; it's just intellectual honesty.

 

[younglite]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia online says about the Trinity.

I agree with this. But my point in showing the other textbook quotes wasn't to prove the Trinity, so much as to point out that there was another orthodoxy in the first three centuries that is all but ignored today in favor of a later orthodoxy.