That Christ is true God, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, is incontrovertibly attested in Holy Scripture. The proofs for the doctrine may be grouped as follows. Scripture ascribes to Christ -
a) The name God (ϑεός, John 1, 1) and Son of God (υἱὸς τοῦ ὑεοῦ, Matt. 16, 16), and these not in an improper sense, in which they are applied also to creatures (ϑεοὶ λεγόμενοι, ἀοὶ πιιποιραίϊυὶ, 1 Cor. 8, 5; John 10,35), but in their proper, or metaphysical, sense, so that Christ is said to possess not only divine functions, but also the one divine essence. John 10,30: “I and the Father are one (ἕν)”; John 1,14: “The glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father” (δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός). Even the nomen Dei essentiale et incommunicabile Jehovah (יְהוֶה) is given to Christ, Ps. 97, 1. 7; cp. with Heb. 1, 6 ;
b) The divine attributes: eternity, John 8, 58; 17, 5; 1, 1; omniscience, John 21, 17; omnipotence, John 10, 28—30;
c) The divine works: creation and preservation, Col. 1, 16.17; John 5, 17—19; the resurrection of the dead, John 5, 21. 28. 29; miracles performed by His own power, John 2, 11;
d) Divine adoration and worship, John 20, 28; 5, 23; Phil. 2, 9 ff. Thus in every way Scripture describes Christ as equal to God in divine majesty, glory, and honor, Phil. 2, 6.
If modern Subordinationists object that Christ is called God only in the predicate, but never in the subject, we reply a) that this is not true (cp. Heb. 1, 8; John 20, 28) and b) that, if Christ is called God in the predicate, this asserts His deity even more emphatically than if He were called God in the subject, since it is the very function of the predicate to describe the subject according to its true essence, Rom. 9, 5. To this we may add that the term God , when used in its proper sense, is never a generic term, but always a proper noun, since it always designates the divine Essence which exists but as one (una numero essentia divina).
Again, in reply to the objection that Christ is indeed essentially God, yet only in a secondary sense of the term (Subordinationists), we say that this anti-Scriptural view is based upon a tritheistic or polytheistic conception of God, as if the Holy Trinity consisted of one supreme God and two lesser deities. While it is true that Christ described the Father as greater than Himself, John 14, 28, according to His human nature, in the state of humiliation. Scripture, on the other hand, ascribes to Him the entire divine essence with all its perfections, Col. 2, 3. 9, proving that He is God in the same sense as the Father.
The charge that Christ in that case could not have suffered alone, since the numerically one essence would have drawn into His suffering also the Father (Patripassianism), can be answered thus: We accept the two doctrines (the unity of the divine essence and the exclusion of the Father from Christ’s suffering and death) on the authority of Scripture as a part of the great mystery of Christ’s miraculous incarnation (1 Tim. 3, 16: ὁμολογουμένως μέγα μυστήριον).
Every denial of Christ’s true and essential deity is based, not upon lack of adequate Scripture proof, but upon the rationalistic tendency of the carnal heart, to which the Gospel of Christ is both foolishness and a stumbling-block, 1 Cor. 1, 23; 2, 14. If Christ is not true God, but only a human prophet. Matt. 16, 13 ff., then the entire Gospel of Christ’s vicarious redemption is annulled and the Pelagianistic doctrine of work-righteousness must stand; for in that case fallen man has no divine Savior, 1 Cor. 15, 3. 4. 17 f., and therefore is obliged to earn salvation by good works. Yet in this very error the proud, self-righteous mind of unregenerate man glories. (Cp. Luther, St. L., IX, 237 ff. 376 ff.; XVI, 1688 ff.; VII, 1263 ff.)