A Diverse Range of Course
Learning Paths

Introduction: The One God Against Many

Monotheism – the belief in one supreme God – has been a defining principle of the Abrahamic faiths. From ancient Israel’s prophets to early Jewish Christians, believers boldly proclaimed the oneness of God even while surrounded by polytheistic cultures. 

The Hebrew Scriptures emphatically declare, “שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד” (Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one). In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirms this when he prays to the Father as translated by Greeks “τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν” – “the only true God”. 

Such texts underscore that the earliest followers of God were strict monotheists. Yet, if monotheism is so clearly taught, a perplexing question arises: Why did pure monotheism not remain the predominant belief throughout history? Why did doctrines emerge that seemed to compromise the oneness of God, and what hindered the triumph of a one-God theology? 

In this blog, we’ll explore how monotheistic belief (specifically in early Christianity) faced challenges – not because the Scriptures changed, but often due to politics, power, and influence. We’ll see how, in the first centuries, a subordinationist understanding of Jesus Christ (placing him in an order under the one God) was once mainstream, and how that view was later suppressed. Finally, we’ll compare then and now, and suggest how true monotheism can prevail in today’s world.

Early Christian Monotheism and Subordinationism

In the generations after Jesus and the apostles, early Judeo-Christians were able to articulate to Greeks how Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit could be related to the one God of Israel without abandoning monotheism. Their solution was often subordinationism – an approach that maintained the Father as the one supreme God, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to Him in status, function, or role. This was not a fringe idea; it was the prevailing orthodoxy before 325 AD. 

Scholars acknowledge that “it is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists”, meaning virtually all respected theologians before the 4th century held some form of this subordinationist view. They firmly believed in one God (the Father) and did their best to explain how Jesus could also be divine; however, their explanations, starting from the premise of one supreme Father, led them into subordinationism. In other words, early Christian writers typically affirmed Christ’s divinity but described Him as second to the Father in rank or derived from the Father’s being. This was the “orthodoxy” (correct teaching, not Catholicism) of its time. Catholicism did not yet exist until after 325 A.D.

To appreciate how prevalent this subordinationist view was, consider a few key voices from the early church (2nd–3rd centuries):

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): Justin, one of the first Christian apologists, taught that Christians “having learned that he [Jesus] is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding him [Jesus] in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third.” In this schema, God the Father alone held the highest place, with the Son and Spirit in subordinate positions – a clear subordinationist framework. This is how we know, for example, such early Christians were not Catholic just like Catholics are not subordinationists.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD): Origen, by many considered a brilliant theologian, likewise spoke of the Son’s lesser status relative to the Father. In his work On First Principles, he wrote: *“The Son is inferior to the Father in comparison, because He exists in dependence on the Father.” Origen believed the Son to be eternal and divine, yet still “inferior” in rank – language that later Catholic generations would deem problematic, but which in Origen’s time was a genuine attempt to safeguard Bible-based monotheism from heretics like Catholics.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–225 AD): Tertullian, a north African who famously coined the term Trinity (Trinitas in Latin), also espoused subordination in explaining it. He stated that “the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole,” citing Jesus’ own words “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) as evidence. In Tertullian’s theology, Father and Son share one divine (Holy Spirit) substance, but the Father is greater as the source – again reflecting a hierarchy within the unity.

These examples (and many others like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Novatian, etc.) show that before the 4th century, subordinationist monotheism was not heretical – it was normal. Such Judeo-Christians were striving to maintain the oneness of God taught in Scripture while also honoring Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Their solution was to describe the Son’s divinity in a dependent or derived sense from the Father. 

This preserved a form of monotheism: God was still a single supreme Father, with Christ as His divine agent. Far from being a small minority view, this was “clearly evident in the writings” of the era and broadly accepted. In fact, historians note that virtually all of the pre-Nicene church shared this subordinationist outlook to one degree or another.

Yet, if Biblical subordinationism was so prevalent, why did it not endure as the dominant Catholic-Protestant Christian theology? The answer lies not in a sudden change of Scripture or a spontaneous enlightenment that it was “wrong,” but largely in power dynamics and doctrinal politics that unfolded in the 4th century.

The Turning Point – Politics and the Triumph of a New Catholic Orthodoxy by Force of Government

By the early 300s, debate intensified about how divine Jesus truly is and in what way. The flashpoint was the controversy between Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, and a theological inferior bishop named Alexander around 318–319 AD. Arius argued, in line with earlier subordinationist logic, that the Son, being begotten of the Father, had a beginning and in that sense, being a fact evident from all Scripture, he was not entirely co-eternal in the same way with the Father as the Father is. His catchphrase was “there was a time when the Son was not,” meaning the Son was not existing eternal in the exact independent way as the Father. 

Alexander and others countered that the Son had to be co-eternal and fully equal, otherwise Catholic Christians might be worshipping a created being. The Catholic church was at a crossroads: Would it continue with the traditional subordinationist understanding, or redefine orthodoxy to insist the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, thereby create a new equapoloytheism (two equal Gods) theology? 

This conflict came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, convened by the pro-Catholic Emperor Constantine. It’s here that politics made its grand entrance into theology. 

Constantine’s primary concern was politically processed to be unity in his empire – a single faith he was advised could help solidify his rule. He came from a Greek culture where an emperor was supposed to be considered a God. He was not a true Church bishop or theologian, not even for Catholics, yet he exerted enormous influence on the pro-Catholic council’s outcome. In fact, the pivotal term of the Nicene Creed, homoousios (Greek for “of the same substance” [with the Father]), was introduced by Constantine himself under advisory from a political pro-Catholic bishop named Hosius (Ossius) of Corduba (in Hispania). Many bishops were initially uneasy with this word. 

As historians note, “many theologians were uncomfortable with this term…considered it to be un-scriptural.” —Bishop R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987), p. 167. Another source is P.F. Beatrice, The Meaning and Significance of Homoousios in Christian Theology, where he quotes:

“It is not in the Scriptures… ‘Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural’” (Hanson, p.167).

Indeed, homoousios does not appear in the Bible, and for those steeped in Scripture alone, calling the Son “of one substance” with the Father sounded not just speculative but suspicious. 

But the Emperor’s will carried the day. Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonas of Marmarica, Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Maris of Chalcedon, have been cited among those representing the vast majority of Bible based teachings.—Athanasius – De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi (“On the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea”), Athanasius – Historia Arianorum (“History of the Arians”), Eusebius of Caesarea – Vita Constantini (“Life of Constantine”), Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book III, chs. 13–14; Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book I, chs. 17–18.

Eusebius of Nicomedia resisted, signed only under duress; later deposed, according to Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God pp.160–170, Ayres pp.89–107, Sozomen I.17

Theognis of Nicaea resisted, reluctant signer; later disciplined. Hanson pp.160–170; Sozomen I.17; Eusebius (Life of Constantine) III.14

In other words, under imperial pressure, the council overwhelmingly signed onto a creed that marked a dramatic shift: Jesus Christ was now declared “true God from true God…of one substance with the Father.” 

In this way, according to Catholic advisory implications, the emperor in Christ and Christ in the emperor made the emperor a God equal to God, not subordinate.

The Nicene Creed’s pronouncements condemned subordinationism going forward. What had been the majority view among earlier Jewish Christians suddenly became misrepresented and labeled as heresy (Arianism). 

Today, the only unreliable sources about Arian come from Catholicism, the nuances of which are subject to Catholic revisions.

It’s crucial to see that this subversion was not purely a grassroots theological consensus – it was significantly driven by the authority of an emperor having the power to make life difficult and execute death, while claiming under political advisory to be seeking unity. Theology was effectively decided by imperial power aligning with one side, the uninformed and wrong side, of the debate.

Even after Nicaea, however, the struggle was far from over. In the decades that followed, subordinationist theology (often mislabelled Arianism and its variants, instead of “Bible-based theology”) actually regained strength at times. 

There were successor emperors and bishops that were sympathetic to Arius’s Bible-based position. In the mid-4th century, the Catholic church became deeply divided by the falsehood of Ossius-Constantine , contrary to the unity it sought. Saint Jerome famously wrote about Catholics, “the whole world [of Catholics] groaned and marveled to find itself Arian.” This was a bitter observation that Arian (subordinationist) Christianity had become widespread among Catholics, even among bishops and entire nations. 

Large “swaths of the church were seduced” the Catholic leadership claimed, by this Bible-based theology, to the point that “Arians” held many bishoprics and even composed hymns teaching that the Son was inferior to the supreme God. 

In other words, monotheism with a hierarchy (Father above Son) nearly won the day through much of Christendom.

What, then, tipped the balance? Ultimately, imperial decree and the consolidation of ecclesiastical power buried the Bible-based subordinationist view. Such sought God genuinely, and because they neglected to dominate politics, politics dominated them.

In 380 AD, Emperor Theodosius I took a decisive step: he issued the Edict of Thessalonica (Cunctos Populos), making the Nicene Trinitarian (equapoloytheism) doctrine the only official faith of the Roman Empire. Citizens were ordered to adhere to “the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity,” and all who dissented were branded heretics and punished by the state. 

Theodosius followed this by expelling Arian bishops from major cities and banning heretical gatherings. With the machinery of state behind it, the Nicene party systematically dismantled institutional Arianism. By the end of the 4th century, what we now know as the doctrine of the Trinity – co-equal Father, Son, and Spirit – had become “orthodoxy,” and the earlier subordinationist understanding was forced underground or outside the Empire. That is, until it inspired Islam in rebellion, which will be discussed in a separate article.

In summary, monotheism with a subordinate Son did not remain predominant in history not because it was biblically refuted, but because it was politically defeated. 

Church councils backed by imperial authority defined what would be “orthodox,” and imperial edicts ensured compliance. The power of money and influence was at play too: the faction that aligned with the Empire gained control of churches, seminaries (as they emerged), and manuscript-copying efforts. They had the wealth and patronage to spread the falsehood theology faster, farther, and by compelling force, whereas those who disagreed (the “few preaching the truth” from a subordinationist perspective) were marginalized, exiled, or deprived of influence. 

In a very practical sense, might made right in the theological arena of late antiquity. 

This is not to say there were no sincere convictions on the Nicene side; but the decisive factor in what “prevailed” was the backing of emperors and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, rather than a spontaneous consensus from the bottom up.

Why Monotheistic Simplicity Lost Out Popularly Temporarily 

Let’s reflect on why monotheism in its simpler form (one God above all, Christ as His subordinate Son) struggled against the more complex Trinitarian formula:

Political Power and Imperial Backing: 

As we saw, emperors like Constantine and Theodosius threw their weight behind the Nicene Trinitarian doctrine for the sake of professed unity. Laws and councils enforced this Biblically false theology, making it dangerous or illegal to promote correct alternatives. Once a false doctrine has State power on its side, historically it gains a massive advantage in becoming “mainstream.”

Ecclesiastical Authority and Councils: 

The bishops who supported Nicene theology were able to convene councils, punish and excommunicate dissenters, and define “orthodoxy.” They often had better political connections and more resources (money, libraries, schools) than the minority who held to subordinationist views. Over time, these misled State councils wrote creeds and catechisms that cemented the Nicene Trinitarian (instead of Tertullian’s Biblical Trinitarian) view in Christian tradition.

Philosophical Appeal: 

The “Nicene fathers,” as Catholics call them, were influenced by Greek philosophical ideas of perfection and immutability. To them, it felt improper to call the Son a lesser deity or a created being – that seemed too simple or unworthy of divine perfection. The more philosophically sophisticated explanation was that Father and Son, although separate entities, share one identical essence, making both equal Gods. This intellectual appeal swayed many educated believers to favor the Nicene position, branding the older subordinationism as a “commonsense” but theologically naïve view.

“Marketing” and Manuscripts: 

After the Nicene Trinitarian side triumphed, they had the means to preserve and disseminate their writings widely – in effect, they won the battle of communications. 

Over centuries, many writings of subordinationist theologians were lost or survived only in fragments (often because later church authorities did not see value in copying Catholic-deemed heretical works). 

Protestants never reformed the error, and their Seminaries have become less valued because of it in recent times.

Meanwhile, pro-Nicene interpretations flourished in sermons, art, and later the printing of Bibles with explanatory notes. The truth that a few had been preaching was effectively out-funded, out-published, and out-proclaimed, by the machinery of the state church, ineptly prolonging the division Constantine claimed to want to end.

He should have embraced the truth instead. Had he done so, Islam likely would never have arisen —it would have been pointless to emphasize a predominant monotheism, or repeat the virgin birth teachings found in the Quran, or proclaim the ascension of Christ, for example. The lone argument that Jesus was not the “Son” (in title only, to defeat Catholicism leverage) would have seemed pointless and ridiculous as well, in proper context, and would have gained no traction.

Human Factors: 

It’s worth noting that religious power structures tend to become self-perpetuating. Once the doctrine of the Nicene Trinity became the test of Catholic orthodoxy, Catholic church leaders had a vested interest in maintaining it – it validated their authority through Catholic claims of apostolic succession and council decisions. Dissent threatened not only doctrine but church unity and authority. Thus, deviations to accuracy were suppressed not purely on Scriptural grounds but to preserve institutional stability. This too, has failed to achieve it's intended outcomes of breadth and glory.

Should Catholicism repent, and truly submit to Scripture, the authority of Islam diminishes as a more authentic monotheism alternative.

In short, monotheism in the form of a single supreme God (the Father) with a subordinate Christ did not dominate later Christian history because it lost the political and institutional contest, not because the Bible unequivocally ruled it out. 

The victors – armed with creed, crown, and coin – wrote the history books and taught the false theology that would be standard for generations.

A New Era: How Monotheism Can Prevail Today

If politics and power once stifled pure monotheism, the good news is that today’s environment is radically different. 

In the modern world, the conditions are more favorable for monotheistic truth to resurface and spread on its own merits. Here’s why the 21st century offers a new chance for a revival of straightforward one-God belief:

Religious Freedom and Pluralism: 

In much of the world, there is no State-enforced orthodoxy controlling believers’ convictions. The U.S. Constitution helped to establish this worldwide.

People blessed with U.S. type freedoms are free to read, interpret, and follow the Scriptures as they understand them, without fear of imperial edicts or exile. This freedom means that a theological truth (like Biblical monotheism) can gain a following based on evidence persuasion rather than political coercion.

Access to Scripture and Scholarship: 

Unlike in the 4th century, ordinary people today have the Bible in their own language and can examine it alongside study tools. The Hebrew and Greek texts are readily available (e.g., one can see יה and יהוה in the Hebrew Bible and εἷς Θεός – “one God” – in the Greek New Testament with ease). 

This has led many to notice that the Bible consistently teaches one God, the Father (e.g., “for us there is but one God, the Father” – 1 Corinthians 8:6, and “one God and Father of all” – Ephesians 4:6). 

Modern scholarship, including patristic studies, is also more transparent about early church history. Even devout Nicene Trinitarian scholars acknowledge the subordinationist language of the Ante-Nicene era. With such knowledge at hand, seekers can discern where later Catholic traditions have added unnecessary complexity beyond the Bible.

Decentralization of Authority: 

Christianity today has not been a monolith controlled by a single empire or institution. There are thousands of denominations and independent churches. This pluralism means that if one group silences a doctrine, it can still find a voice in another. 

 For instance, various movements over the last few centuries – from the Unitarian Christians in Europe and America, to some Adventist and Bible Student groups, and others – have championed returning to the faith in “one God, the Father” and Jesus as Messiah, monotheism. While these groups were once on the fringe, their persistence shows that monotheism never died, it was just sidelined, suppressed, and forced underground where it now groundswells to prevail. 

Now, without a Constantine or Theodosius to shut them down, such monotheistic fellowships are free to grow and let their message compete in the open marketplace of ideas. Likewise, apps not strictly controlled by Catholics or Europe (AI), such as Telegram, or Lark, provide ever occurring forums that cannot be silenced for keeping the truth alive.

Modern Communication (“Better Marketing”): 

What the “few” truth-preachers in antiquity lacked was the ability to broadcast their message widely against an establishment. Today, however, anyone with a compelling monotheistic message can utilize the internet, social media, publishing, and other platforms to reach millions. This has leveled the playing field. A blogger or speaker advocating authentic monotheism can gain traction as their message resonates and is well-supported by Scripture – something Tertullian or Arius could only dream of in their day. 

In essence, the truth can do its own “marketing” now, without needing the patronage of emperors.

Jeremiah 31:34 (NKJV): God promises in the new covenant that “they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” linked with full forgiveness of sins. 

Matthew 24:27 – Christ likens His coming to lightning that flashes from east to west, emphasizing visibility from all directions. Matthew 24:30 – “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Revelation 1:7 – “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.” 

Ecumenical Climate and Scripture Focus: 

Interestingly, there is a growing trend among many Christians to simplify and focus on core teachings of Scripture rather than inherited creeds. 

Interfaith dialogues with Jews and Muslims (both staunch monotheists) also encourage Christians to articulate their belief in one God from the Bible more clearly and truthfully. Some lay Christians, when reading the Bible without preconceptions, organically arrive at a more unitary understanding of God (for example, noting that Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” in John 17:3, and that in the Bible’s vision of the future Zechariah 14:9 (NKJV) says essentially that the LORD will be King over all the earth, and that in that day the LORD is one and His name one). 

Such observations are prompting fresh conversations about the true nature of God. While church institutions change slowly, individual minds are changing one by one, led by conscience and Scripture.

Learning from History: 

The historical record, once confined to elite universities, now thoroughly examined by broader audiences on the internet, can itself inspire a course correction. 

Knowing that early original Jewish Christianity was originally more monotheistic and subordinationist, and that this was supplanted due to political maneuvering, some believers today feel a call to “go back to the beginning.” 

It’s a bit like a historical reset button – by studying the writings of early Judeo-Christians in their context, modern believers can distinguish between original apostolic teaching and later innovations. 

This doesn’t mean everything about post-biblical theology was wrong, but it does mean we can sift the gold from the dross. If subordinationist monotheism was suppressed unjustly, acknowledging that fact is the first step in giving it a fair hearing again, and perhaps truly get closer to the unity Catholicism could only dream about.

In combination, these factors create a vastly different scenario from the 4th century. 

There is no Christian emperor to threaten dissenters with exile; information flows freely; and believers can assemble and share Bible-based truth without fear. Monotheism – the simple creed that “God is one” – can thrive under these conditions, since it indeed reflects the Biblical truth.

Conclusion: Rekindling the Vision of One God

Monotheism may not have prevailed in the halls of imperial councils, or their misguided lands, but it has never been extinguished. 

The vision of one God over all, and one Messiah under God, persisted quietly through history and now has the opportunity to shine openly. 

The early Judeo-Christian experience teaches us that truth can be sidelined by worldly power for a time, yet truth has a way of resurfacing. 

Today, by comparison to the past, we live in an age where the constraints of politics, money, and institutional influence on doctrine are weakened. We have the privilege (and responsibility) to revisit the foundations of our faith with fresh eyes.

To be sure, theological convictions are deeply personal and often tied to identity. Change comes slowly. 

But as more believers study the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, and as they engage with the real history of early Christianity, many are rediscovering the beauty of pure monotheism. 

This isn’t about winning an argument for its own sake – it’s about worshipping God in truth. 

A faith that God is truly one (with no co-equal rivals) can inspire a more direct devotion to the Father, just as Jesus taught when he said, *“the Father is greater than I”. It also aligns Christianity more closely with its roots in Judean-Scriptures and the practice of the first Jewish apostles.

In rekindling this vision, we are not inventing a new doctrine but rather reviving an old truth that was there from the beginning: “For us there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6) and Jesus is His Christ, our Lord. 

History shows how that truth was overshadowed, but the present offers an open door to let it prevail. 

Monotheism can prevail now – not by force or fiat, but by the force of conviction and the clarity of Scripture. 

In a world hungry for spiritual authenticity, the elegant simplicity of one God worthy of worship may well find its predominance again, as hearts and minds turn from the complexities of political.creeds to the straightforward creed of Christ: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only”.

In the end, the story of monotheism’s past struggles and its hopeful future is a reminder that while powers rise and fall, truth endures. It may be suppressed for a season, but given time, fighters for it and it's freedom, it has the power to prevail. 

The journey of monotheism – from ancient Hebrew prophets, through early Christian subordinationists, to today’s truth-seekers – is still unfolding. 

The hope is that by learning from the past and embracing the opportunities of the present, believers everywhere can be united in proclaiming and living the beautiful truth that was never meant to be lost: “Hear, O world: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.”

Sources: Historical and biblical analysis drawn from scholarly research and early Christian writings, including evidence of ante-Nicene theology, primary quotes from Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian affirming subordinationist monotheism, and documentation of the political influences at the Council of Nicaea and beyond. 

The resurgence of monotheistic emphasis today builds on these insights and the renewed accessibility of Scriptural truths in their original languages.

Endnotes on Islam:

Because of the confusion and excesses that arose in Catholic Christian theology, Islam generally avoids even metaphorical use of “Son of God” for Jesus. The Qur’an’s “corrective message” was to honor Jesus’s miraculous birth – calling him Word from God and Spirit from Him (Q4:171) – yet emphatically deny that this grants Jesus a share in divinity or a literal filiation to God.

The following is about as close as it got to anyone hinted at being a child or dependent upon God :

 إلى الله أنفعهم لعياله »

Read more Scripture-centered teachings through our study network:

– Main Monotheism Page

– Scripture Topic Blog Feed

– The Six Pillars of Study