Off the top of my head: Jesus served us well and put himself at our mercy.
@The_Omega, after reading your post, my immediate response is that you are trying to wriggle out of the mysterious nature of the Trinity with your reasoning. Am I right? I’m curious.
The Word is not a separate Person; he is a Person who is part of God. But our language fails us in trying to fathom the mystery. What is your primary, biblical reason that the Trinity is not in the Bible? Why do you oppose that doctrine, basically?
I think that Jesus’ Sonship began with his conception in Mary’s womb, but he is the eternal Word as the Agent of the Father in performing creation, salvation, and sanctification.
I understand that the doctrine of the Trinity denies internal division, but we must follow the implications of its own framework. If within the one divine essence there exist three distinct persons, each with their own center of consciousness, will, and relational awareness—then by definition, that is an internal division. You cannot affirm three distinct “I’s” who can speak to, send, glorify, or love one another without affirming an internal multiplicity. The moment you say the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and yet each is fully God, then you’ve introduced three minds, not one undivided being.
The “four negations” of Chalcedon (no confusion, no change, no division, no separation) may have been intended to preserve unity, but they can’t logically hold together when applied to a doctrine that also insists on personal distinctions within the Godhead. The biblical witness does not present God as three self-aware persons in one being—it reveals one God who expresses Himself in different ways, but never divides His essence. If God has three who’s within one what, and each “who” is fully conscious, then the divine essence is internally partitioned, even if that language is uncomfortable. The Trinity doctrine, as historically articulated, does not escape internal division—it simply masks it behind philosophical terms that contradict biblical simplicity.
The philosophical distinction between “distinct” and “divided” may hold rhetorical value in classical Trinitarian theology, but when applied to three “centers of consciousness,” “wills,” and “relational awareness,” the line between distinction and division becomes a semantic shield rather than a meaningful clarification. A single being with three distinct minds, wills, and relationships is, by any plain definition, not one indivisible being but a compound of three persons —each aware of the others, acting distinctly from the others, and relating to the others. That is functional division, regardless of creedal language.
Now, while it’s true that God uses Spirit-filled people across generations to proclaim truth, we must never elevate church tradition or creedal formulations above the authority of Scripture itself (2 Timothy 3:16). The Word of God is not “just a text”—it is living and active (Hebrews 4:12), and the Holy Ghost leads each generation into truth (John 16:13), not merely into inherited interpretation. Truth isn’t owned by a tradition—it is revealed by the Spirit to those who hunger for it and search the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). If our doctrine cannot be supported by a plain, Spirit-guided reading of Scripture, no amount of historical repetition or creedal endorsement can make it true.
I am not elevating anything above the clear message of Scripture, especially the Gospel of John that God is one God but also three Persons. I don’t wish to try to overthink that mystery. I submit that you are overthinking that mystery as evidenced by your first paragraph and thus elevating your reason above Scripture, which must remain mysterious beyond the givens of the Bible.