8:6.

one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for him;
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and
we arethrough him. This verse clearly distinguishes between Jesus and God.
There is one God and Father, and there is one man, Jesus, who is our Lord.
This verse shows how God and Jesus work in unity to get the Church what it
needs. God gave Jesus all authority and made him head over the Church, so now
we get what we need through Jesus.

Some Trinitarians say that this verse supports the doctrine of the Trinity because
it says that all things came through Jesus Christ. But what the verse actually says
is that all things came from God, through Jesus. That stands in
contradiction to Trinitarian doctrine because it places Jesus in a subordinate role
to God. According to this verse, Jesus is not co-equal with the Father; the
Father is God and the ultimate source of all things, and Jesus is not called
God.
The context is the key to understanding what the phrase all things came through
him means. There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context
about the creation of the world such that the all things refers to the original
creation of Genesis. This verse is speaking of the Church. God provided all
things for the Church via Jesus Christ.
The whole book of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts
8:6 with for us, i.e., forChristians. 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 had said that even
though there were so called gods, for us there is no God but one. The Roman
world was polytheistic, and people were used to having different gods and
different lords provide different things in different ways. As the various gods
provided things, often those provisions would be mediated and distributed to the
people through lords, lesser gods or people, such as the priests. That was a
major reason the Romans had so many temples and shrines to the different gods
and worshipped them allto curry as much of their favor as possible. But Paul
challenged that commonly-accepted practice, and boldly stated that there was
only one God from whom are all things, and only one Lord through whom are
all things.
The very next two verses, 1 Cor 8:7-8, have a practical application of the truth
that there is only one God who provides everything for us through Jesus Christ.
Since no idol in the world really exists, (1 Cor 8:4), then they do not really
provide the food that is sacrificed to them and cannot affect it for better or
worse. Thus, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to
idols. Verse 1 Cor 8:8 says, But food does not bring us near to God; we are no

worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. However, this revelation was new
for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They
had dozens of food laws, and many people who had converted to Christianity still
could not eat food with a clear conscience if it had been offered to an idoleven
though the idol was nothing and the source of the blessing was God working
through Jesus Christ. Hopefully though, by explaining the situation, more
Christians would become free in their conscience and not be bound by old
regulations.
By wording the verse the way he does and saying there is one God, the Father,
and one Lord, Jesus, Paul pens this verse in a way that clearly stands against the
Trinity. If the Trinity really existed, then this verse would have been the perfect
place to say so, and have something such as, for us there is only one God made
up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or something similar. There is no good
reason that the verse would be written in a way that is so clearly non-Trinitarian,
calling the Father, God, and Jesus, Lord, if the Trinity existed. Furthermore,
the logical reason that this verse is worded the way it is and the reason that the
Bible does not make a clear statement about the Trinity, here or anyplace else, is
that there is no Trinity. There is, as this verse says, one God and one Lord,
Jesus Christ. [For more discussion on this verse, see J. S. Hyndman, Lectures on
The Principles of Unitarianism, pp. 58-63; Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or
Human Tradition, pp. 42-45.]