Jesus as the only saviour

If there is only one God, and Jesus is God why is it not appropriate to describe God as our saviour, but instead to say that Jesus is the only saviour?

Both are appropriate. Jesus is God. God is one God in three persons.



God the Father is our Creator, Jesus the Son is our Savior and the Holy Spirit is our Advocate! All God each has a different role.


It’s not inappropriate to describe God as our savior.


So if the father is fully God, and Jesus is fully God and the holy spirit is fully God. But God is saviour, why couldn’t we then say that the father is saviour, or that the holy spirit is saviour etc. According to the catechism jesus is the “only saviour”.

What part of the CCC are you looking at?

1 Like

That’s not the Catechism, for starters.

1 Like

Because God Our Creator sent His Son to be Our Savior.

452 The name Jesus means “God saves”. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, “for he will save his people from their sins” ( Mt 1:21): “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” ( Acts 4:12).

" 457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:70"

God became man. The Father sent the Son to save us, and the Son’s name is Jesus. It is through Christ’s death that saved us, not the death of the Father nor the Holy Spirit, hence why it says that. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons of one God, but the persons are not each other: the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.

1 Like

Because the Father sent the Son to be Incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. It was the Second Person of the Trinity who became a man.

1 Like

I’ve asked this several times before but I will ask again. When you say it is “through Christ’s death that saved us, not the death of the Father nor the Holy Spirit,” do you (and the Church) mean that G-d the Son actually died, or do you mean that G-d Incarnate (Jesus the Man only) died, or both since there is a hypostatic union (Christ is fully G-d and fully Man)? If both, how could G-d have actually died either physically or spiritually? What does it mean to say that G-d the Son died and was resurrected: how is it possible?

Further, as I understand the Trinity, G-d the Father, G-d the Son, and G-d the Holy Spirit are distinct with different roles yet not separate and the same One G-d. Is the hypostatic union of Jesus also distinct but not separate or is the union neither distinct nor separate?

By ONLY God’s will.

1 Like

Jesus the man died. God in His divinity cannot die.

1 Like

So in that case the hypostatic union of Jesus fully G-d and Jesus fully Man is distinct or perhaps separate in death although not in life?

Pretty much what I was going to say

1 Like

Although G-d is One, which Person’s will do you mean: G-d the Father’s will or G-d the Son’s will? And are you (and the Church) saying that G-d the Son actually died, not only the human Jesus?

It’s my understanding that the human and divine natures of Jesus are distinct. Those natures don’t meld together into some kind of third nature, which was condemned as a heresy.


OK, the distinctness of the three Persons of G-d also applies to the distinctness of the natures of G-d the Son, and that distinctness of Christ continues when Jesus the Man but not Jesus, G-d the Son, died? And, at the same time, the will of Jesus the Man was in complete accord with the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, and the will of Jesus, the Son of G-d, is in complete accord with the will of G-d the Father? Therefore, the distinctness is based on role rather than will?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit