What does it mean that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” — and why did adding “and the Son” (Filioque), lead to one of the greatest divisions in church history?
I recently wrote two articles; one on the question of what it means that Jesus is the “begotten” Son of God, and the other on what it means that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father (and maybe the Son!). You can find those articles here:
These questions have to do what theologians call the “Eternal Generation” (of the Son) and the “Eternal Procession” (of the Holy Spirit). The question of the Holy Spirit gets into one of the fiercest theological debates in history; one which played a major role in the division between Eastern and Western Christianity (Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic).
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I speak with Shane Angland to unpack the history, theology, and ongoing significance of the Filioque controversy.
Together, we explore the origins of the Nicene Creed, the debates at the Council of Constantinople (381), and why the Western church added the Filioque clause.
We also discuss: • The difference between eternal procession and the mission of the Spirit • Why the East and West approach theology differently • The role of language (Greek vs. Latin) in shaping doctrine • How politics—not just theology—deepened the divide • Whether this issue still matters for Christians today
If you’ve ever wondered why theology can get so complex—or why it actually matters—this episode will help you see that these debates aren’t just academic, they’re about faithfully understanding who God is.
What does it mean that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” — and why did adding “and the Son” (Filioque), lead to one of the greatest divisions in church history?In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady is joined by Shane Angland to unpack the history, theology, and ongoing significance of the Filioque controversy. Together, they explore the origins of the Nicene Creed, the debates at the Council of Constantinople (381), and why the Western church added the Filioque clause.They also discuss:The difference between eternal procession and the mission of the SpiritWhy the East and West approach theology differentlyThe role of language (Greek vs. Latin) in shaping doctrineHow politics—not just theology—deepened the divideWhether this issue still matters for Christians todayIf you’ve ever wondered why theology can get so complex—or why it actually matters—this episode will help you see that these debates aren’t just academic, they’re about faithfully understanding who God is.Visit the Theology for the People blog at nickcady.org
In this conversation, we explore: • Why theology is best done in conversation, not isolation • How John Owen interacts with figures like Bernard of Clairvaux and Karl Barth • Whether the Song of Songs should be read as a love poem, an allegory of Christ, or both • Karl Barth’s radically Christ-centered theology—and why it both attracts and unsettles evangelicals • How engaging other traditions can deepen our understanding of Scripture
Ty and Kelly argue that faithful theology requires both conviction and humility: learning from the broader Christian tradition while remaining rooted in the authority of Scripture.
If you’ve ever wondered how to engage theological voices outside your tradition without compromising your convictions, this episode will help you think more deeply and faithfully.
What happens when we read a theologian like John Owen alongside voices from across church history?In this episode of Theology for the People, Nick Cady interviews Kelly Kapic and Ty Kieser, authors of Owen Among the Theologians: Conversations Across the Christian Tradition.In this conversation, we explore:Why theology is best done in conversation, not isolationHow John Owen interacts with figures like Bernard of Clairvaux and Karl BarthWhether the Song of Songs should be read as a love poem, an allegory of Christ, or bothKarl Barth’s radically Christ-centered theology—and why it both attracts and unsettles evangelicalsHow engaging other traditions can deepen our understanding of ScriptureKapic and Kieser argue that faithful theology requires both conviction and humility: learning from the broader Christian tradition while remaining rooted in the authority of Scripture.If you’ve ever wondered how to engage theological voices outside your tradition without compromising your convictions, this episode will help you think more deeply and faithfully.
In that post, I mentioned that whereas the Bible says that Jesus is “from the Father” (the doctrine of “eternal generation”), the Bible says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father — and, according to the Western Christian tradition, “from the Father and the Son.”
That raises some important questions:
Where does that language come from?
Is it biblical?
Why do Western Christians add that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? What is the history of that?
In this article, I will walk you through the biblical foundation for the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, and the historical argument between Western and Eastern Christians about whether to add the clause “and the Son.”
The Biblical Language: “Proceeds from the Father”
The key verse behind this language comes from Jesus Himself:
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (John 15:26)
This is the only place in the Bible where the word “proceeds” (Greek: ekporeuetai) is explicitly used to describe the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father.
Two important things are happening in this verse:
The Spirit proceeds from the Father – This speaks to the Spirit’s eternal origin.
The Son sends the Spirit – This speaks to the Spirit’s mission in time.
Christians have historically distinguished between these two ideas:
Eternal procession: Who the Spirit is in relation to the Father.
Temporal mission: What the Spirit does in being sent into the world.
This is similar to the distinction between the “ontological” and the “economic” Trinity. For more on that, read: The Trinity: Ontological & Economic
But this verse raises a question: If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, what is the Son’s role?
The Son’s Role in Sending the Spirit
Other passages fill in that picture:
John 16:7 — Jesus says of the Spirit, “I will send him to you.”
John 20:22 — Jesus breathes on the disciples after His resurrection and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Galatians 4:6 — “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.”
These verses strongly connect the Spirit not only to the Father, but also to the Son.
So while John 15:26 emphasizes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the broader New Testament shows that the Spirit is also intimately related to the Son—to the point where He is even called “the Spirit of the Son.” In fact, in John 14, when telling His disciples at the Last Supper that He would not abandon them through this departure from this world, Jesus said that He would come to them, in the context of sending the Holy Spirit to them (see John 14:18). Furthermore, the New Testament authors tell us that the Holy Spirit indwells those who believe in Jesus, and then Paul tells us in Colossians that Christ dwells in us who believe (cf. Ephesians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:27)
Why “Proceeds”? What Does that Mean?
In addition to accurately reflecting the words of Scripture, “proceeds” (for the Spirit) and “begotten” (for the Son) describe the distinct ways each person of the Trinity relates to the Father. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God, these relationships distinguish them as unique persons.
The Father is unbegotten (He is the source). The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The Son is not the Father because He is begotten, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son because He proceeds. In God’s temporal mission, the Spirit is then sent by the Son and glorifies the Son, and the Son, in turn, glorifies the Father.
The Early Church and the Nicene Creed
As the early church wrestled with how to faithfully summarize biblical teaching, they gathered for the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). At that gathering, they produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is “begotten, not made.”
“We believe in the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father…”
Notice: no mention of “and the Son” yet.
At this point, the church was primarily concerned with affirming:
The full divinity of the Spirit
His distinct personhood
His procession from from the Father (directly using the language of John 15:26)
The Addition of “and the Son” (Filioque)
The phrase “and the Son” (Latin: Filioque) was added later in the Western church.
It first appeared in regional councils in the West (notably in Spain in the 6th century) as a way to combat false teachings that undermined the divinity of the Son.
The reasoning went like this:
If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, some might conclude that the Son is less central or less divine.
But if the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it reinforces the full equality and unity of the Father and the Son.
By the early Middle Ages, the Western church had adopted the phrase into the creed:
“who proceeds from the Father and the Son”
The Filioque Controversy
This addition led to one of the most significant theological disputes in church history between the Eastern (largely Greek speaking) and Western (largely Latin speaking) churches.
The Eastern church objected for two main reasons:
1. Theological Concern
Eastern theologians argued that the Father is the single source within the Trinity.
They believed:
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds from the Father
Adding “and the Son,” they argued, blurred these distinctions.
2. Authority Concern
The East also objected that the Western church added to the creed unilaterally, without an ecumenical council.
For the Eastern church, this wasn’t just a doctrinal issue—it was also a question of church authority and unity. Tensions were already growing over the Western church’s claims about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (the “Pope”) as the head of all Christians — a claim the Eastern church did not accept. From their perspective, the unilateral addition of the Filioque to the creed felt like another example of the West asserting authority in a way they believed was illegitimate and unwarranted.
The Great Schism: The East-West Split
Although it wasn’t the only factor, the disagreement over the Filioque clause contributed to the growing divide between Eastern and Western Christianity, culminating in the Great Schism of 1054.
To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Filioque clause and maintains “The Spirit proceeds from the Father,” whereas the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches affirm “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Is the Filioque Clause Biblical?
On the one hand, Eastern Christians point out that John 15:26 explicitly says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. On the other hand, Western Christians highlight the fact that the Spirit is deeply connected to the Son (John 16:7; Galatians 4:6), the Spirit is sent by the Son and bears witness to Him, and the unity of the Father and the Son is biblical and must be preserved.
Many theologians today suggest a both/and approach:
The Spirit proceeds from the Father
The Spirit proceeds through the Son in a way that reflects their unity
This preserves both the Father’s role as source and the Son’s participation and unity with the Father.
Conclusion
So, why do Christians say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father (and the Son)”?
It’s because Jesus explicitly stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), and because the New Testament shows the Spirit is also sent by and connected to the Son
Even though Christians have disagreed on how to best phrase it, both sides are trying to be faithful to Scripture and to preserve the mystery and beauty of the Trinity.
One definition of “begotten” is to create or produce, to bring into existence.
If God and Jesus are both eternal, and they have no beginning of existence and no end of existence, how is Jesus God’s begotten son?
The answer to this question lies in understanding the Greek word translated “begotten” and the attempt to explain something important that challenges the limits of human language.
“Begotten” Does Not Mean “Created”
When the early church clarified its beliefs about Jesus at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), it used a very precise phrase:
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα (gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta) = “Begotten, not made.”
That phrase is crucial.
“Made” means created—something that comes into existence
“Begotten” means sharing the same nature as the one who begets
gennaō (γεννάω) = “to beget” implies the same nature
poieō (ποιέω) = “to make” implies a different nature
So when Christians say Jesus is begotten, they are explicitly saying that He is not a created being.
This language was chosen in response to teachers like Arius, who argued that the Son (Jesus) was a created being. The church’s answer was clear: Jesus is not made—He is begotten.
Why Say that Jesus is “Begotten” at All?
We get this language from the Bible, and from Jesus’ own words. For this reason, it’s important that we not dismiss them, but receive them and try to understand them.
In passages like John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:16, Jesus is called the “only begotten Son.”
The Greek word behind this phrase is: μονογενής (monogenēs)
While it has traditionally been translated in English as “only begotten,” its meaning is slightly different. It most directly means: “one of a kind,” “unique,” or “only one of His kind”
So when John calls Jesus the monogenēs Son, he is emphasizing that:
Jesus is the unique Son of God
He is not one Son among many
He is the Son in a completely different category
This fits with what the creed later clarifies: Jesus is not just another “child of God” – He is the Son of God in a way that no one else is.
“Begotten” Speaks of Relationship, Not Beginning
Theologians have used the phrase “eternal generation” to describe this truth:
The Father is eternally Father
The Son is eternally Son
The Son is from the Father—but not after the Father
In other words: There was never a time when the Son did not exist. So “begotten” does not describe a moment in time, but rather aneternal relationship within the Godhead.
Why Not Just Say “Born”?
The Greek word gennaō can also be translated “born,” so this raises a question about why English translations of the Bible and creeds use the word “begotten” instead?
The reason is an attempt at theological precision.
“Born” tends to imply a moment in time
“Begotten” emphasizes shared nature, without implying that there was a “starting point” when it began.
So, begotten is carefully chosen to preserve the idea that the Son is unique and that He shares in the Father’s nature, but was not created.
The Unique Son: Jesus Is the Son by Nature; We Become Sons by Adoption
This brings us to an important distinction. The Bible says that we become sons or children of God through faith in Jesus (John 1:12, 1 John 3:1)
As sons of God, we share in the inheritance which is ours as sons, and Jesus is our brother. But there is a difference between the way that we are sons of God and the way that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus is the only begotten Son
Believers are adopted as sons (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4–7)
Jesus is:
Son by nature
Eternal
Shares the same divine essence as the Father
We (believers) are:
Sons and daughters by adoption
Not sons from eternity past, but:
Brought into God’s family by grace
John 1:12 says: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”
We become children of God. Jesus never became the Son, He has always been the unique Son of God – in a way that no one else is or ever will be.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just a technical theological point, it’s actually essential to the gospel.
If Jesus were made, then He would be a creature. But if Jesus is “begotten, not made,” then He is fully God.
And that matters because:
Only God can fully reveal God
Only God can truly save
The message of the gospel is that the eternal Son of God came to us, so that we, who are not sons by nature, might become sons by grace.
Going Deeper: “Eternal Generation” versus “Procession”
The doctrine of “Eternal Generation” is the way that theologians explain some of the passages in the Bible which describe the Son as being from the Father, while not being created by the Father. This is different from “procession,” which is the term traditionally used for the Holy Spirit.
But as for the Son coming from the Father, consider these examples:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)
“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3a)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
The Bible describes the Son as being “from” the Father, but not as a created being or someone who came into existence at some point—rather, as the eternal Son who has always been in perfect relationship with the Father.
Here are four basic assertions about the Trinity that are universally accepted by Christians [1]:
There is one and only one true and living God.
This one God eternally exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
These three Persons are completely equal in attributes, each sharing the same divine nature.
While each Person is fully and completely God, the Persons are not identical.
It is in an attempt to write down what the Bible, and Jesus Himself stated regarding the nature of God, that we use the terms “begotten” and explain it using the language of “eternal generation.”
Both God the Father and the Son have distinct and obvious eternal roles that we see in the Bible, but as I was thinking through the role of the Holy Spirit in eternity, I couldn’t come up with anything concrete.
Could you give a brief overview of the role of the Holy Spirit in eternity?
Great question! I would begin by stating, that from God’s perspective, eternity is not a future reality, but an ongoing reality. Jesus said (speaking to the Father): “this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3) In other words, eternity is the continuation of what has already been ongoing for eternity past. For that reason, there are many things about the Holy Spirit which will not change, but, there are some that will.
I laid out the distinction between the “ontological Trinity” (who the members of the Trinity are) and the “economic Trinity” (what the members of the Trinity do) in this post, which is worth checking out: The Trinity: Ontological & Economic
What will not change
For eternity, the Holy Spirit will continue to be the third person of the Trinity—fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
Furthermore, the Spirit, who now dwells in believers as a guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13–14), will continue to indwell God’s people, enabling perfect love, worship, and joy in the presence of the Triune God.
What will change
Some of the roles of the Spirit in the present age include:
Conviction of sin and the need for a savior
Empowerment for mission and fulfilling God’s callings
Sanctification of believers
In eternity, these roles will not continue, because they will no longer be needed. However, the indwelling Spirit will continue to unite the redeemed, not only with one another, but also with the Father and Son as we are brought into the eternal communion of the Godhead in a greater way than we experience now here on Earth.
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, I sit down with returning guest Shane to explore the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the fourth ecumenical council of the early church.
Recorded live in Colorado during an Expositors Collective training weekend, this conversation traces the events leading up to Chalcedon, its theological breakthroughs, and its messy aftermath.
From the fallout of the Council of Ephesus, to the clash between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of Christology, and the mess of Ephesus II, Shane breaks down the stakes: how do we understand the two natures of Christ—human and divine—in one person?
The episode also tackles the political power plays, the deposition of bishops, and the schisms that followed, including the rise of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Plus, hear why Shane sees Chalcedon as both a triumph and a tragedy—and what it still teaches us today.
Resources Mentioned:
The Definition of Chalcedon (available online for further reading).
In this episode, Nick sits down in person with returning guest Shane to explore the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the fourth ecumenical council of the early church. Recorded live in Colorado during an Expositors Collective training weekend, this conversation traces the events leading up to Chalcedon, its theological breakthroughs, and its messy aftermath. From the fallout of the Council of Ephesus to the clash between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of Christology, Shane breaks down the stakes: how do we understand the two natures of Christ—human and divine—in one person? The episode also tackles the political power plays, the deposition of bishops, and the schisms that followed, including the rise of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Plus, hear why Shane sees Chalcedon as both a triumph and a tragedy—and what it still teaches us today.Resources Mentioned:The Definition of Chalcedon (available online for further reading).Bruce Shelley’s Church History in Plain Language (Fifth Edition).Augustine’s The Unity of the Church on the role and limits of councils.Visit TheologyforthePeople.com
In this episode of the Theology for the People Podcast, we continue our series on the first four ecumenical councils of the early church, diving into the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).
Matthew Pursely, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, joins us again to explore the theological debates surrounding Nestorius, the nature of Christ, and the implications of the hypostatic union—Jesus being fully God and fully man.
We discuss how this council addressed Nestorianism, affirmed Mary as the “Theotokos” (God-bearer), and shaped Christian understanding of communion and humanity’s connection to Christ.
The Council of Ephesus (431 AD): Hypostatic Union, Nestorianism, & Theotokos – with Matt Pursely –
Theology for the People
In this episode, we continue our series on the first four ecumenical councils of the early church, diving into the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). Matthew Pursely joins us again to explore the theological debates surrounding Nestorius, the nature of Christ, and the implications of the hypostatic union—Jesus being fully God and fully man. We discuss how this council addressed Nestorianism, affirmed Mary as the "Theotokos" (God-bearer), and shaped Christian understanding of communion and humanity’s connection to Christ.Recommended ResourcesFor those wanting to dive deeper into the councils and related theology:Edward Siecienski – The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal ControversyAdonis Vidu – Exploring the Doctrine of Divine InseparabilityJohn Behr – The Nicene Faith (2 volumes) and John the Theologian and the Mystery of ChristKallistos Anatolios – Retrieving NicaeaJohn Henry Newman – Arians of the Fourth CenturyWilliam Bright – Notes on the Canons of the First Four General CouncilsTodd Miles – Superheroes Can’t Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies (compares heresies to superhero archetypes—highly recommended entry-level read).Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Theology for the People podcastVisit the Theology for the People website at theologyforthepeople.com
How did the early church come to a clear understanding of who Jesus is and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son? And why did it take more than one council to settle these questions?
In this episode, I’m joined again by Matthew Pursley, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, and an expert in historical theology. Last time, we discussed the Council of Nicaea, and in this episode, we continue the conversation by diving into the Second Ecumenical Council—Constantinople (381 AD).
We discuss why the Council of Constantinople was necessary even after Nicaea, the role of the Cappadocian Fathers in defining the Trinity, the Filioque controversy, and how this council still shapes our faith to this day.
How did the early church come to a clear understanding of who Jesus is and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son? And why did it take more than one council to settle these questions?In this episode, I'm joined again by Matt Pursley, Executive Pastor at Park Hill Church in San Diego, CA, and an expert in historical theology. Last time, we discussed the Council of Nicaea, and in this episode, we continue the conversation by diving into the Second Ecumenical Council—Constantinople (381 AD).We discuss why the Council of Constantinople was necessary even after Nicaea, the role of the Cappadocian Fathers in defining the Trinity, the Filioque controversy, and how this council still shapes our faith to this day. Make sure to visit the Theology for the People website.
Jeremy Treat is the Pastor for Preaching and Vision at Reality LA, a church in Los Angeles, California. He is also an Adjunct Professor of theology at BIOLA University, and he has his PhD from Wheaton College.
On this episode of the Theology for the People podcast, I spoke with Jeremy about the doctrine of the Atonement, including what it means, and why it is so central to Christianity.
We also discuss some common errors that people commit when thinking about the atonement, and how many of these errors are due to a view of the atonement which is reductionistic. Further, we talk about the practical implications of those different reductionist views.
Jeremy believes that the best narrative in which to understand the atoning work of Jesus is that of the Kingdom of God, in light of the entire story that the Bible tells.
Jeremy Treat is the Pastor for preaching and vision at Reality LA, a church in Los Angeles, California. He is also an Adjunct Professor of theology at BIOLA University, and he has his PhD from Wheaton College.
Jeremy is the author of several books. His latest book is The Atonement: an Introduction, published by Crossway Publishing as part of their series of Short Studies in Systematic Theology.
In this episode, Jeremy speaks with Nick Cady about the doctrine of the Atonement, including what it means, and why it is so central to Christianity.
They also discuss some common errors that people commit when thinking about the atonement, and how many of these errors are due to a view of the atonement which is reductionistic. Further, they talk about the practical implications of those different reductionist views.
Jeremy believes that the best narrative in which to understand the atoning work of Jesus is that of the Kingdom of God, in light of the entire story that the Bible tells.
Unitarianism is the belief that God is not Trinitarian in nature.
This belief can take many forms, such as Modalism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “modes” in which God sometimes manifests, or in Partialism: the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are “parts” of who God is.
Other unitarians believe that Jesus is not divine and that there was a time when Jesus was not, i.e. that at one point in time, Jesus came into being – and that he has not existed from eternity past, as the Father has. Further, unitarians might believe that the Holy Spirit is either essentially the Father, or that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, but not a “person” of the Trinity.
The following is a list of responses to common Unitarian claims, written by Pastor Jason Cralley, Executive Pastor at White Fields Community Church.
Creeds show progression of development towards the Trinity.
False. The creeds were developed to fight heresy. As one heresy appears, they created a creed to address it. When another heresy appeared around the same topic, they would change the creed to make it more specific. According to the earliest Christian writings it is very clear that they believed in the trinity. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and others all church fathers that wrote about the Trinity long before the first creed was ever written.
The Old Testament foretold that Jesus would be a human being.
True. But it also said he would be God. Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 7:14 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” As Matthew 1:23 points out, Immanuel means “God with us.” The Biblical Unitarians argue that the Jews never understood that these meant the Messiah would be God. True. But as we knew they misunderstood most of the prophecies about Jesus. They thought he would come and set up an earthly kingdom. We cannot take what they believed as truth.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus was a man.
True. But it also teaches that Jesus was God. We have to take the Bible as a whole and not take some verses to make a theology and leave others out. Jesus has divine attributes that only God possesses: he is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20), Omniscient (Mark 2:8, John 6:64; 16:30; 21:17), Omnipotent (Matt. 28:18, Mark 4:37-41; 6:30-44), Created all things (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power (Heb. 1:3). Jesus thought himself as God: he forgave sins (Mark 2:3-12) and the everyone knew that was something only God could do as they tried to kill him (Luke 7:48-50), he accepted worship as God and never rejected it (Matt. 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28), He stated he was God (John 10:30-33, Mark 14: 61-62, Rev. 1:8).
The Bible teaches that Jesus was a created being.
False. Jesus explains his own preexistence ((John 3:13; 6:33, 38, 62; 8:23; 16:28) and that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58). God sent his Son proving that Jesus existed before his incarnation (Rom. 8:3; 1 John 1:2; Gal. 4:4). He didn’t create a son but sent the one that already existed.The New Testament teaches that Jesus is eternal: He existed before creation (John 1:1-3; 17:5), Jesus holds all creation together therefore he had to preexist before his birth (Col. 1:17), Jesus has always been and always will be (Heb. 13:8, Rev. 1:8), created all things meaning he was there before creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), he keeps the universe going by his power so he had to be preexistent (Heb. 1:3).
The Bible teaches that Jesus has a God.
True and False. Jesus has two natures: fully human (Gal. 4:4) and fully divine (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8). When he came down to earth he humbled himself and cooperated with the limitations of being a human (Phil 2:5-8, Heb. 2:9). Jesus the man had someone he would call his God (the Father). Jesus still has a human nature (1 Tim. 2:5; Col. 2:9). Jesus will always have a human nature and will therefore always call the Father God. This does not mean that Jesus doesn’t share the same divine nature as God the Father.
Biblical Unitarianism commits the logical fallacy of equivocation where the meaning of a word changes as it is used. Saying “The Trinity is the teaching that the one God of all existence, consists of three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is not the same as “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.” The first sentence uses God as a quantitate, dealing with how many gods there are. The second sentence is qualitative, dealing with the nature of divinity. The Unitarians are confusing the qualitative with the quantitative. Jesus is qualitatively stating that the Father is God. He is not quantitatively stating that only the Father is God, and he is not.
Jesus Called the Father the only true God.
True. But Jesus claims that the Father and he are one (John 10:30) which his opponents knew to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God and picked up stones to kill him (John 10:31). He later states the Father is in him, and he is in the Father (John 10:36-38). So, if the Father is the one true God, then so is he. The Triune God is the one true God.The Holy Spirit is simply the Father. False. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Father sent the Spirit (John 14:26). The Spirit does the will of the Father (Rom. 8:27). The Holy Spirit is mentioned with the Father and Son (Matt. 28:19). If the Father was the Spirit, none of these would make sense.
Theology for the People 