THE GODHEAD PT. 1: The Ontology of the Godhead

Who would have thought that we would still be discussing the Doctrine of God in 2019? Surely Tertullian or even Athanasius never thought we would still be discussing this doctrine almost two millennia later, but here we are, as polarized as then.

Perhaps I should disclose to the reader and not pretend to be neutral. I believe in three co-substantial and co-divine deities. I believe this, and I am sure that the reader can respect that I have disclosed my stand on the onset. I’m sure that a reader who disagrees with my beliefs would humbly ask me how I hold such a view when there are clear verses that speak to the oneness of God. I would respond that there is evidence for a pluralness (yes, I said pluralness) as well. When one understands ontology, it truly sets the text in a different light than the generally proof-texted absolute oneness view. There is harmony within the scriptures that speak of the oneness and the pluralness (it’s a word now) of God.  We just need to overcome our ontological hurdles whenever we read the text.

Ontology is the study of nature. But not nature as in wildlife, but nature as in “being.” Everything that exists is something (duh!). Every being has substance or essence. God creates things after their kind in Genesis 1, and these things are their kind (again, duh!) and possess all the necessary qualities to whatever kind they are.

Superior created kinds also exist. Beings who are ontologically different from all other creatures. The text tells us of humans and whatever class of being the angelic hosts are. Humans are not angels (at least in this sense). Humans might have communicable qualities shared with angels; however, they are not angels ontologically. Angels also aren’t ontologically human. This is the crux of the ontological argument of this article series. It is not safe to use the realities of one class of being and blanket apply them to another class of being. You can’t use animal properties or realities in your analysis of angels. You can’t use angel realities to analyze human realities, for these are not the same class of being. If you still agree with me you’re essentially a Trinitarian. lol. (Assuming that you’re consistent).

Several verses deal with the nature of other personalities besides the Father that shows us that these personalities are divine. Let’s deal with one. “For in Him (Jesus) dwells the fullness of deity bodily” (Col 2:9). Jesus is described as possessing deity/divine nature within Himself. In other words, He is divine. He has divine nature (Godhead). So Jesus ontologically is God also. Here we see simple proof of a pluralness (no turning back now) in being God, although the Father and Christ are God individually.

Jesus and God share the same nature. They have the same substance and essence. We cannot trace out their essence exactly, for it is divine and too amazing for us, but we have been given in the text some of God’s abilities, which we can discuss further. God separates Himself from other gods by His ability to create (Isa. 41:20). Jesus created (John 1:1-3). We also hear of God’s personality traits, and Jesus states that “whoever has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

There is a oneness, but we must also embrace the plurality as well. The fact that the Scriptures bring you to this point, a pluralness is no longer far-fetched. If one can quote the Shéma (Deu 6:4) and neglect the other verses, such a one needs to balance their exegesis. The same way that the pluralist can’t run away from the emphasized oneness of God. Hence my view, which embraces the oneness and pluralness of God. If we can agree to a oneness and a pluralness now, then this article is not in vain. Let this serve as an introductory article to Fuller Soap’s Godhead series.