The Nicene Creed - line by line

[AnticipateHisComing]

Yet, that's precisely what the creed says:
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made."


No reputable theologian would say that Jesus is less than the Father,

I am glad that what I profess comes from reading the Bible and not the doctrines that are taught by "reputable theologians".

Short history lesson. There was a time when the RCC controlled the accepted doctrine. This doctrine stood for over 1000 years. It was largely unchallenged because what people knew was what they were told. The reformation changed all this. At the same time, scriptures was translated into the language of the people. People could read for themselves.

Granted this opens the door to many interpretations. This is the part where scriptures says differences are OK as long as they are defended/debated. This is how you get to the truth; with a church that knows scripture and with guidance by the Holy Spirit.

I say this because I do not accept the argument of "common belief" to be a valid defense of a belief. Use scripture to defend what you believe.

even though Jesus said those things.

You admit a strong scriptural argument against what you believe.

And indeed, the creed doesn't express that either.

You quote the words of the creed in a different section, but not here. You state a non obvious reading of clear words. They are:

"the Father Almighty"

Explain to me how these words in the Nicene Creed do not express the Father is greater. Note that this description is not given to any other person in the creed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, Anticipate, I'm up for this. I don't have very many answers for your questions, which means this is a good place for me to start.

BTW, before I got to this post, I had planned to request:

This has nothing to do with my question. There are multiple examples in scriptures of things being one but not equal.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm drawing a blank. None are coming to mind. Could you kindly provide examples, so that I better understand your thinking on this? Thank you.

Again I will say, this is not how the Nicene Creed reads. It says ONE God then the Father Almighty.

Very well. We can explore this then. I'm not completely sure I understand you, so if I misread you anywhere, feel free to correct me.

And I don't have many answers - maybe none - for your questions. We'll have to see where it goes. Thanks for your comments.

Originally Posted by Kylissa
The three persons of the Trinity are all co-equal. They are all God. One God in three persons.

You quote a different creed, not one that is criteria for being orthodox on this forum. Please quote scripture to defend what you believe and proclaim.

This is where I put on my surprised face. I thought this was pretty basic orthodox Christian belief. One God, in three Persons, co-equal, co-eternal.

I've reexamined nearly everything I believe, but to be honest, I have not reexamined that one. I can't quote Scripture offhand - I could look for it.

If it was just the wording, then I apologize if I've been misunderstood. But if there truly is a problem with what I quoted - other than perhaps the "co-equal" part, which from the rest of your post seems to be the problem, please let me know.

There are three parts of the Nicene creed that describe the three persons of God. They are separate because each person has different qualities, just like the church is one but made up of different unequal people.

That is actually how I read the Creed myself.

I wonder if it's meant to be understood as

I believe in One God:
- The Father Almighty, Creator of all things
- One Lord Jesus Christ, (Who for us men and our salvation ... )
- The Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of Life

I'm not sure. But that's kind of how I understand it when I read it?

You repeat the common excuse to dismiss Jesus' clear words. Read the context of John 14, your explanation makes no sense. Jesus says he is going to heaven but the disciples should not be distraught because he will ask the Father who is greater, to send the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was going to heaven and would resume his greater glory with equal power to the Father and Holy Spirit, he would just send the Holy Spirit himself and not ask the greater Father to send him.

I actually don't know about any common excuse. I was just speculating (and I think I was clear that it was a guess). But this is a little more difficult to discuss because you're pulling together verses that are separated by a bit. I'm guessing you mean v. 28? “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

I'm not so sure that this is the reason the Father will send the Spirit. To be honest, I've never thought of that, but the discussion of sending the Holy Spirit is separated from this by a bit of other discussion, so I'm leery of saying one is true by reason of the other. I may be wrong. As I said, I've never looked at it. I'm willing to consider, but ...

The best answer I have for you is that I learned the Creed without the filioque ... the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Period. The reasons for that and implications are pretty complex for me, and I've been working on them for some time.

I will also say that there are many other scriptures that point to the Father being greater.

Jesus taught us to pray to the Father; with thy will be done and thine is the kingdom and power and glory.

The Son was given authority over creation.

1 Cor 15:27 For he[Father] “has put everything under his[Jesus] feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

OK, read for what it says (and it seems to say plainly) ... this passage would be very convincing for the point I think you are making. Indeed, I may be wrong.

But in reading a wider context I get that there is a possibility of a different interpretation.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Again, I am speculating here. This is not something I've looked at or considered before (so I thank you for bringing it to my attention).

But the subject here seems to be about death, not about the order of authority? And if we are talking about death, the fact is the Christ alone died - not God the Father. So that just muddies the waters of what may be the intent of this passage a bit.

You may be right. But I'm not sure yet.

Look to the places where God the Father made his presence known to man, the glory being so great that man trembled in fear. Compare this to even Jesus' transfiguration and you will note that the level of glory is not the same.

Matt 17
1 Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

I see your point. And again, you may be right. But I'm leery of deciding theology saying that the Father and the Son are not equal based on this illustration. It is a good point to bring out. I'm willing to look further in case I have gotten confused over where I learned what and the reasons why.

You could easily discuss all this in a seperate thread. I don't wish to do that here. I just want to discuss what is stated in the Nicene Creed without the baggage of another creed.

I was originally going to open another thread, but I think it can be useful to talk about it here, since it's the Creed we are discussing.

I'm sorry - I feel as though I should know this, but what Creed are you speaking of that I am confusing it with?

Thank you for your post.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, in truth, it doesn't matter one iota what some "creed" says or how it is worded.

The problem comes from the "religious rules" we've invented. Just as Kylissa needs liturgy in her worship, and I won't set foot inside a "liturgical" institution, many people have convinced themselves that God authorized these "creeds" the same way some people have convinced themselves He authorized the KJV.

Thus, if you do proclaim allegiance to some words a church publishes.... then people tend to think that is somehow a binding contract with God, and if it reads one way or another that they either agree with, or don't agree with, such a "creed" might influence them for or against either your denomination, or even against God, altogether.

Frankly, despite the argument here for needing to publish a document proclaiming that we stand FOR something concrete and tangible... that can be recited.... I honestly see no point in any of these "creeds". They are just one more possible barrier that we throw up between God and men.

You make a good point - as far as asking "What is the purpose of the Creed/s?"

Of course, they were codified at first to combat heresies and define the faith.

It can still serve that purpose ...

But for us (me), it is a way for us to declare ourselves a community that share in certain key beliefs. We truly ARE one family, and we recite it to affirm this, and the belief defines the Church. At that point in the service, we also greet one another in Christ, kiss or embrace, etc.

If that's not important to someone - I'm not criticizing that.

But that's the way we use it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think we put too much value on a creed, as if the document were sacred scripture. But its nothing more than people agreeing on beliefs, the creed is not scripture, its not ispired text, although it may be based on it. And how can we put a few things in the Creed but not all things? Maybe the Creed should say that we believe that scripture alone defines all truth.

Because not everyone is sola scriptura.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Because not everyone is sola scriptura.

The Church is, so if any one else is not then they build their house on sand. Jesus is the truth, His disciples taught the truth. But the Vatican (for example) clearly doesn't always teach the truth. The Vatican is fallible and not the foundation of truth. So what do we have as the foundation? Scripture. God spoke through the prophets and then through His Son and His apostles who wrote the NT, which is scripture.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church is, so if any one else is not then they build their house on sand. Jesus is the truth, His disciples taught the truth. But the Vatican (for example) clearly doesn't always teach the truth. The Vatican is fallible and not the foundation of truth. So what do we have as the foundation? Scripture. God spoke through the prophets and then through His Son and His apostles who wrote the NT, which is scripture.

That is a matter of opinion. I am actually exploring that in another thread, and the Traditional Churches and the Reformers as well apparently do not agree with your statement, so it is not applicable to the Church as a whole.

I invite you to discuss it there ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7844407/ ), if you wish to contribute to that discussion. Or if you like, you are free to begin your own discussion.

It's been done on CF many times before and usually runs into thousands of posts without reaching agreement.

So it is too far off topic for this thread, and potentially too disruptive.

Thank you.

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, in truth, it doesn't matter one iota what some "creed" says or how it is worded.

In Christianity, it does...at least in real historic Christianity.

There are reasons why the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, as well as the Definition of Chalcedon and others like the creed attributed to St. Athanasius exist, but the biggest is also the most obvious: doctrinal issues.

The problem comes from the "religious rules" we've invented.

What "rule" is "invented" by the Nicene Creed? Please, by all means show some primary sources and prove this.

Just as Kylissa needs liturgy in her worship, and I won't set foot inside a "liturgical" institution, many people have convinced themselves that God authorized these "creeds" the same way some people have convinced themselves He authorized the KJV.

This shows a real lack of understanding of or knowledge of the history of Christianity, be it its theology, the Church, or our religion in general. And to compare it to KJV-Onlyism is a huge disservice and entirely illogical; a real apples and oranges care.

Thus, if you do proclaim allegiance to some words a church publishes....

Like the Holy Scriptures? It is the Church's book; the Church decided what was in and what was not; that's documented history.

then people tend to think that is somehow a binding contract with God, and if it reads one way or another that they either agree with, or don't agree with, such a "creed" might influence them for or against either your denomination, or even against God, altogether.

The fact is, the theology of the Nicene Creed is historical right down through the very earliest Christian witnesses. We know that for a fact because we have their writings: we have how the earliest Christians interpreted, and we can see clear and visible lines of the same theology being passed down from disciple to disciples to student to student from the Didache right down to the First Ecumenical Council where that creed was first penned. Everything that disagrees with it cannot say the same, and again, we know that because we have the historical record. And despite what a lot of people claim, we do have the writings of those archheretics of old, be they Arius or Nestorius, etc. So the idea that we don't have their point of view is an old lie by those who've never actually taken real time to do the research.

Frankly, despite the argument here for needing to publish a document proclaiming that we stand FOR something concrete and tangible... that can be recited.... I honestly see no point in any of these "creeds". They are just one more possible barrier that we throw up between God and men.

Nope; they are testaments of historic orthodoxy found in the written record.

...and I could never go to any "church" that had such a negative view of history, the Nicene Creed, or the faith that folk like Sts. Polycarp, Justin, or Ignatius were made martyrs for.

 

[Albion]

I think we put too much value on a creed, as if the document were sacred scripture.

You may have a point. I don't think most people confuse the two, but I too have noticed what seems to be a tendency on the part of some to speak as though the Creed is somehow infallible or produced by men as they were guided to write , word for word, by God. Those people probably don't even notice that they're talking like that.

But its nothing more than people agreeing on beliefs, the creed is not scripture, its not ispired text, although it may be based on it. And how can we put a few things in the Creed but not all things? Maybe the Creed should say that we believe that scripture alone defines all truth.

The fact that the Nicene Creed does not attempt to answer everything verifies your point--that it's a human instrument intended for a certain purpose and is not meant to be taken as the last word on everything.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Because not everyone is sola scriptura.

Creeds do have a role. It takes a lot of time to study all of scriptures. I believe the Bible must be read cover to cover multiple times to begin to understand it. It also takes some intelligence to know what is being said. It also takes wisdom to come to a correct understanding of what is taught. This all guided by the Holy Spirit and maybe help from other knowledgeable people.

So for the simple people that prefer to concentrate their efforts in living the faith over knowing the faith, I see a benefit.

A creed is also of great value in this forum. It separates out the unorthodox from being confused with orthodox. Again this is for people that don't know all of scriptures to know the difference.

 

[Albion]

Creeds do have a role. It takes a lot of time to study all of scriptures. I believe the Bible must be read cover to cover multiple times to begin to understand it. It also takes some intelligence to know what is being said. It also takes wisdom to come to a correct understanding of what is taught. This all guided by the Holy Spirit and maybe help from other knowledgeable people.

So for the simple people that prefer to concentrate their efforts in living the faith over knowing the faith, I see a benefit.

A creed is also of great value in this forum. It separates out the unorthodox from being confused with orthodox. Again this is for people that don't know all of scriptures to know the difference.

And it puts the church 'on record' as it were. That's important when it comes to informing those who are not members.

 

[~Anastasia~]

OK, Anticipate, I'm up for this. I don't have very many answers for your questions, which means this is a good place for me to start. <snip>

Trying to catch up in some other threads but after a moment it occurred to me - I don't see how we can make a greater/lesser within the Trinity and still affirm that all three Persons are God.

You would have "greater and lesser gods" in that case - and that is NOT what we believe.

How can one BE God (Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit) and yet somehow be less?

I don't have Scripture for you yet, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with this line of thinking ...

 

[Targaryen]

Creeds do have a role. It takes a lot of time to study all of scriptures. I believe the Bible must be read cover to cover multiple times to begin to understand it. It also takes some intelligence to know what is being said. It also takes wisdom to come to a correct understanding of what is taught. This all guided by the Holy Spirit and maybe help from other knowledgeable people.

So for the simple people that prefer to concentrate their efforts in living the faith over knowing the faith, I see a benefit.

A creed is also of great value in this forum. It separates out the unorthodox from being confused with orthodox. Again this is for people that don't know all of scriptures to know the difference.

Good answer...very good answer

 

[Restoresmysoul]

That is a matter of opinion. I am actually exploring that in another thread, and the Traditional Churches and the Reformers as well apparently do not agree with your statement, so it is not applicable to the Church as a whole.

I invite you to discuss it there ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7844407/ ), if you wish to contribute to that discussion. Or if you like, you are free to begin your own discussion.

It's been done on CF many times before and usually runs into thousands of posts without reaching agreement.

So it is too far off topic for this thread, and potentially too disruptive.

Thank you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7844735/#post66407568

 

[Willie T]

Trying to catch up in some other threads but after a moment it occurred to me - I don't see how we can make a greater/lesser within the Trinity and still affirm that all three Persons are God.

You would have "greater and lesser gods" in that case - and that is NOT what we believe.

How can one BE God (Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit) and yet somehow be less?

I don't have Scripture for you yet, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with this line of thinking ...

One thing I will always say of you....... You are a thinker.

 

[Willie T]

Trying to catch up in some other threads but after a moment it occurred to me - I don't see how we can make a greater/lesser within the Trinity and still affirm that all three Persons are God.

You would have "greater and lesser gods" in that case - and that is NOT what we believe.

How can one BE God (Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit) and yet somehow be less?

I don't have Scripture for you yet, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with this line of thinking ...

This runs parallel to the claims that God couldn't be around sin, and it made Him so angry He had to vent that wrath on His son.

If we think.

Are we actually giving sin, and its originator so much power that God was, basically, "controlled" by Satan and his sin? This would have to concede that Satan would ALSO have to be an equal to God whom he is influencing, (and even MORE powerful than God since his will made God feel certain ways, and forced Him to have to react to sin.)

No, we don't want to see this obvious conclusion, and we will run, screaming, head-long into a brick wall of illogic denial before we will look at what we are actually saying with our beliefs.

 

[Albion]

This runs parallel to the claims that God couldn't be around sin, and it made Him so angry He had to vent that wrath on His son.

If we think.

Are we actually giving sin, and its originator so much power that God was, basically, "controlled" by Satan and his sin? This would have to concede that Satan would ALSO have to be an equal to God whom he is influencing, (and even MORE powerful than God since his will made God feel certain ways, and forced Him to have to react to sin.)

No, we don't want to see this obvious conclusion, and we will run, screaming, head-long into a brick wall of illogic denial before we will look at what we are actually saying with our beliefs.

I don't think that that particular line of thought (which we know is held in certain corners of Christianity) actually is parallel to what we've been talking about. I'd be surprised if Kylissa did either.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ This is the first clause in the second credo of the Creed as it is said in the Catholic Liturgy.

Once more it starts with what I believe. This is what a Christian stands for and confesses openly. Until a little over two decades before the council at Nicea (in 325 AD) a Christian could be killed for asserting that I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ ...

Such statements were contrary to the Roman cult of the Emperor. During the reign of Diocletian ...

In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional Roman religious practices. Later edicts targeted the clergy and ordered all inhabitants to sacrifice to the Roman gods (a policy known as universal sacrifice). The persecution varied in intensity across the empire&#8212;weakest in Gaul and Britain, where only the first edict was applied, and strongest in the Eastern provinces. Persecutory laws were nullified by different emperors at different times, but Constantine and Licinius's Edict of Milan (313) has traditionally marked the end of the persecution.​

The faith that we still profess was a faith tempered by recent persecution. The bishops at the council would remember the persecuting empire. They would, of course, be thankful to Constantine (recently (in 324 AD) become the sole emperor of the Roman empire) for the current peace and freedoms they enjoyed as Christians within the empire. But they would remember the persecutions and how easily and quickly one's lot in life could change.

And here we are, chatting, on a Christian bulletin board, about theology and we, those of us living in English speaking lands, know almost nothing about persecution. So when we read the creed we read with slightly different glasses than those worn by the creed's authors.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ ... just one Lord, not many. Just one God, not many. We are not polytheists.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm drawing a blank. None are coming to mind. Could you kindly provide examples, so that I better understand your thinking on this? Thank you.

You ask for examples of things being one but not equal.

Marriage. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quotes the institution of marriage that God ordained at creation. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

Church, is One Body.
1 Cor 12:12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Christ, head of One Body.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Eph 5:29b just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.


One, but not equal.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Eph 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


It should be clear that when the Bible says you are one, it does not mean equal. To think that would mean we could claim to be equal to Jesus on the basis that the church is one with him.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Trying to catch up in some other threads but after a moment it occurred to me - I don't see how we can make a greater/lesser within the Trinity and still affirm that all three Persons are God.

You would have "greater and lesser gods" in that case - and that is NOT what we believe.

How can one BE God (Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit) and yet somehow be less?

I don't have Scripture for you yet, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with this line of thinking ...

This runs parallel to the claims that God couldn't be around sin, and it made Him so angry He had to vent that wrath on His son.

If we think.

Are we actually giving sin, and its originator so much power that God was, basically, "controlled" by Satan and his sin? This would have to concede that Satan would ALSO have to be an equal to God whom he is influencing, (and even MORE powerful than God since his will made God feel certain ways, and forced Him to have to react to sin.)

No, we don't want to see this obvious conclusion, and we will run, screaming, head-long into a brick wall of illogic denial before we will look at what we are actually saying with our beliefs.

I don't think that that particular line of thought (which we know is held in certain corners of Christianity) actually is parallel to what we've been talking about. I'd be surprised if Kylissa did either.

Maybe not exactly parallel, but on the other hand, if I understand Willie correctly, what he DOES seem to be saying is that we follow statements to a reasoned conclusion, to see if what we are saying may be true or not. (Or at least that we should.)

I understand it because there was something similar - not this exact situation - but rather the idea that God is forced to require his anger to be satisfied by punishing someone - Christ - before He is contractually able to forgive sins. That's one I thought about for a while, and I decided that it makes the "requirement" bigger than God and limits His ability to forgive on the basis of His mercy alone, if He so chooses.

It's just another one of those things that leads to a certain conclusion, and if we don't believe the conclusion about God, then we have to question if the premises are true.

In this case, I'm having serious problems with a hierarchy within the Trinity, for the reasons I stated above.

I'm a little surprised that no one commented on that little jaunt I was willing to entertain for a moment. I'm still not remember where I was told that the three Persons of the Trinity are "co-equal" &#8230; but the very logical implications of them NOT being co-equal provide me with a serious problem with such a teaching.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You ask for examples of things being one but not equal.

Marriage. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quotes the institution of marriage that God ordained at creation. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

Church, is One Body.
1 Cor 12:12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

Christ, head of One Body.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Eph 5:29b just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.


One, but not equal.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Eph 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


It should be clear that when the Bible says you are one, it does not mean equal. To think that would mean we could claim to be equal to Jesus on the basis that the church is one with him.

Thank you. I will say that you have made the case that simply saying two (or more) things are one does not prove that they are equal.

I'm going to have to say I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a hierarchy within the Trinity though. Haven't had time to research it though.