Common Objections to the Filium View
Honest questions deserve honest, Scripture-based answers. Here are the most frequent objections people raise against the Filium framework — and how the biblical material responds.
Top Objections & Biblical Responses
1. “This sounds like Arianism or subordinationism — the Son is not fully God.”
This is the most common objection. People assume that if the Son is not co-equal in the same ontological substance, He must be a lesser being.
Response: The Filium view affirms the Son is fully divine because He shares the Father’s own life in perfect Spirit-union. The distinction is relational and functional, not a difference in degree of divinity. The New Testament never uses “same substance” language; it uses relational and functional language instead.
See: Logos chapter and text-by-text tables on John 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 (Part 3).
2. “If the Son is not co-equal and co-eternal in the same substance, how can He be truly divine?”
Traditional Trinitarian theology ties full deity to co-equality and co-eternality within one essence.
Response: The Bible ties the Son’s full deity to His perfect, reciprocal relationship with the Father (Spirit-union) and His role as the unique expression of the Father to humanity. The Son is not “less God” — He fully shares and reveals the one God (the Father) while remaining the distinct Son.
See: “Lost in Translation” chapter and the John 1 table (Part 3).
3. “This diminishes the unity of God and treats the Son as a second God.”
Critics worry that removing co-equality leaves us with two gods instead of one.
Response: The Filium framework upholds the strict monotheism of the Old Testament: there is only one God — the Father. The Son is not another God; He is the unique, eternal Son who perfectly reveals and expresses the one God to us. The unity is relational (perfect Spirit-union), not ontological fusion.
See: Opening Arguments and “Lost in Translation” chapter.
4. “What about the baptismal formula and passages that seem to treat Father, Son, and Spirit as three co-equal persons?”
Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are often cited as proof of three co-equal persons.
Response: These passages show the Father, Son, and Spirit working together in redemption, but they do not define three co-equal ontological persons. They are fully consistent with one God (the Father) relating to humanity through His Son, with the Spirit as the bond of union between them.
See: text-by-text tables on Matthew 28 and 2 Corinthians 13 in Part 3.
5. “Why reject 1,700 years of church tradition and creeds?”
Many feel that departing from the historic creeds is arrogant or dangerous.
Response: We respect the early church’s desire to protect Christ’s deity, but the creeds added philosophical categories that the New Testament never used. Our commitment is to let Scripture speak on its own terms, even when that challenges later tradition — the same principle the Reformers applied.
See: Preface, “The Philosophers”, and “Lost in Translation” chapter.
Ready to dig deeper?
These answers are developed in much greater detail throughout the material.
Explore the Full Material