Have you ever read about the Son in Hebrews 1? I believe God created [through] that Son, that God appointed that Son heir of all things, [and] that God set that Son above his companions.
Trinitarian monotheists believe exactly the same thing, which means Hebrews 1 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.
You believe the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son?
No. Both the Logos and the Son refer to one person who is eternally the same. He is eternally the Logos with respect to creation and revelation, he is eternally the Son with respect to the Father, and in both respects he is eternally and fully God. The Logos has never ceased to exist, the Son never came to be.
Only his incarnate mode of existence as Jesus is temporal or had a beginning; the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14) and was given the name Jesus (Matt 1:21).
Do you believe the Son who calls his God “Father” is the offspring of the Father?
No, as the term “offspring” denotes a creaturely relation and is never used in Scripture to describe the Son. We believe the Son is eternally begotten of the Father without beginning, change, or essential subordination. They are distinct as to their relation, not their ontology; God is one in essence as three distinct persons.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Again, that is what trinitarian monotheists affirm, which means Hebrews 13:8 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.
Colossians 1:19 [speaks to] what the Spirit made known to me: [the fullness of deity is] from the will of another.
Because trinitarian monotheists rely directly on passages like Colossians 1:19 for their doctrine, there is more going on than quoted words convey by themselves. Translation is not sufficient. Exegesis is needed here.
The key question is not whether the fullness dwells in the Son—we clearly see here that it does—but whether that fullness is
constitutive of who the Son is (the trinitarian view), or
derivative of another (the binitarian view). Eusebian subordinationism says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Father shares it. Nicene orthodoxy says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Son is God. The text itself does not force either conclusion. The conclusion is supplied by prior commitments about divine simplicity, eternal generation, and the Creator–creature divide.
That is why an appeal to “fullness” of deity alone proves nothing. The verse is downstream of ontology, not upstream from it. Both camps are able to affirm the sentence, but only one explains it without shipwrecking divine simplicity or aseity.
You read everything in regard to the Son through the lens of the doctrine of the trinity.
Just as you read everything regarding the Son through a binitarian lens. This is not the gotcha you were reaching for.
And the "persons" noted in regard to creation are God our Father and Christ our Lord. The persons noted on the throne are God, Jesus's Father and his Lamb. No mention of the Spirit. Because the Spirit is just that, the Spirit OF God our Father the only true God.
For whatever reason, you forgot the involvement of the Spirit in creation (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Job 33:4). Scripture does not treat creation as a Father–Son dyad with the Spirit as an impersonal residue.
Enthronement signals at once the fountainhead of sovereign authority in the Father and messianic kingdom rule in the Son (cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 Cor 15:24–28). The Father’s enthronement is the public vindication of his eternal kingship; the Son’s enthronement is the completion and confirmation of his finished mediatorial obedience. Hebrews 10:12 says that the Son “sat down at the right hand of God” because the Son assumed flesh, obeyed as the second Adam, suffered, died, and rose.
The Father is enthroned as the personal source from whom all authority is eternally given, according to the divine counsel that precedes creation itself. The Son is enthroned as the one through whom that authority is exercised—foundationally in the eternal covenant of redemption (
pactum salutis) and historically through covenantal obedience, atonement, and exaltation. His reign is not an abstraction but the executed will of the Father carried out through mediatorial fulfillment.
The Spirit is not enthroned because his work does not terminate in enthronement. His work is not crowned by session but expressed through procession and presence. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, he actualizes and sustains the reign of the enthroned Christ, applying in time what was decreed in eternity and accomplished in history. He makes the reign of Christ present, effective, and inwardly actualized in the people of God. He is not enthroned as mediator, because there is only one mediator.
Crucially, in Scripture the Spirit is explicitly present
before the throne (Rev 1:4; 4:5; 5:6), depicted in temple imagery—fire, lamps, breath, voice—rather than in royal session. That placement is not marginal or subordinate; it is theological. The Spirit is the divine presence proceeding from the throne, not a lesser being excluded from it.
If the Spirit were merely “the Spirit of God” in the way you suggest—a kind of property, force, or extension—Scripture could not speak of him as sending and being sent (John 15:26; Gal 4:6), teaching and testifying (John 14:26; 15:26), searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), being lied to as God (Acts 5:3–4).
- Father = eternally unbegotten; originator—redemption purposed (Eph 1:3-6).
- Son = eternally begotten; mediator—redemption accomplished (Eph 1:7).
- Spirit = eternally proceeding; applier—redemption applied (Eph 1:13-14).
Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt. The external work of the holy trinity is indivisible ontologically, yet ordered and differentiated economically.
