My Other Blogs:

Apologetics Lane
Bible Difficulties Answered
Charismata Matters
Gospel Crumbs

Gospel Meals

Quotes and References

Remembered Music

My Comments on other Blogs

• Page Two
• Page One

[or here: Page Two; Page One]

The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog

This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).

Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism

Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity

The Deity of Christ

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill

Markan Christology

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources

The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg

The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18

Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity

Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris

The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns

Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels

The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity

The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity

The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity

Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)

Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds

Doxologies to Christ

The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

Jesus the True and Proper SON of God

The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"

Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father

Jesus Lord of the Sabbath

John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31 

God in the Midst

Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will

The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah

Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah 

The Spirit of Jesus

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"

Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill

Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ

Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted

God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39

Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?

Jesus' Omniscience

Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"? 

Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics

Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy 

Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?

Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

 

The Trinity or Plurality of God

The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill 

Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"

The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser

Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God

Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead

Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill

Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity

All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)

Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity

The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity

Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern

The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]

Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity

Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint

Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation

Why Do Trinitarian Prooftexts Have "So Many Problems"?

 Interactions with Mike Gantt

Part One:  F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel

Part Two:  Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner

 

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit

Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill

Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament 

The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns

Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?

The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer

 

---

 

 Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:

Jewishness and the Trinity

The Trinity: Questions and Answers

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?

 

 

The Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies Are Closer Than Is Usually Recognized

The Synoptic Christologies might actually have a Jesus claiming to be divine to the same [or near same] degree as GJohn. The reason why we often think Jesus' statements about His divinity are very much higher in GJohn than in the Synoptics is because we often read them in light of the pre-interpretation given by the author who says in the very beginning of his gospel that Jesus was "God" (John 1:1-3). But if you actually read Jesus' statements on their own [not letting the introduction flavor or taint them], while they do clearly have Him *claiming* He is Divine, they don't actually have Him *saying* or *stating* [at least explicitly] that He is Divine. The author of the GJohn expects his *readers* to understand Jesus' statements to be claims to Deity [given his introduction of Jesus being God], but the author also expects readers to understand that the original audience of Jesus couldn't always tell whether Jesus was or wasn't claiming to be Divine. Often in GJohn Jesus uses language which could be interpreted either way. Either interpreted in a way that is a claim to Deity, and in another way that could be interpreted as not being a claim to Deity. This is why His hearers sometimes didn't know how to react to Him. Or were frustrated by His wording and (apparent intentional) ambiguity. Not just on His Deity, but His messiahship and other topics (e.g. John 10:24; 11:12-14; 16:25-29). For example, Jesus says in John 8:24 "Unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you will die in your sins." That could be interpreted by the original audience to be a claim to deity. Or just a claim to being the messiah, when He says "I am [he the messiah]." It's only at John 8:58 that His hearers have enough data and confidence that Jesus was probably claiming deity that they felt justified in taking up stones to stone Him to death. Even though, Jesus' statement, per se, could still be interpreted in a way that's not claiming Deity. For proof, see the arguments Unitarians (who reject the full Deity of Jesus) use to argue that the correct interpretation is one of no claim to Deity on Jesus' part. However, while Jesus' statement even there could be construed by His original audience in a way that doesn't have Him necessarily claiming Divine status, I think it's clear that the author of GJohn would have his *readers* understand it actually IS a claim of Deity. The same could be said of many other places in John (e.g. John 13:19; 18:5-6, passim). When one sees GJohn in this way, and combines it with an understanding of how much higher the Christologies of Jesus are in the Synoptics as is usually recognized [see my blogpost Markan Christology], the seeming alleged discrepancy [or difference, or disparity or their being disparate in nature] in the Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies is greatly diminished or eliminated.

See also my blogpost:

Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?   

Can the Son and Spirit Be "Self-Existent" Given the Doctrines of Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession?

 

I asked the following question of ChatGPT:

The Trinitarian doctrines of the Eternal Generation [EG] of the Son and the Eternal Procession [EP] of the Holy Spirit seems to me can still affirm the necessary existence [NE] of both the Son and Spirit, but implies a denial of their self-existence [SE]. Is there a way to affirm both while affirming EG and EP?

ChatGPT answered in a way that I myself independently concluded years ago, and which I've seen other theologians have argued [for example John Edwards HERE]:

ChatGPT's Answer:

Yes—within classical Trinitarian theology there is a well-developed way to affirm EG and EP while still affirming both the Son’s and the Spirit’s necessary existence, and even (in a qualified sense) their self-existence. The key is careful distinctions.

---

1. Necessary existence (NE) is straightforwardly affirmed

All orthodox Trinitarian positions affirm that:

• The one divine essence exists necessarily

• The Father, Son, and Spirit each fully possess that same essence

Therefore:

• The Son and Spirit exist necessarily, not contingently

• Their existence is not caused in time, nor dependent on creation or divine will

So EG and EP do not threaten NE at all.

---

2. The real tension concerns self-existence (aseity)

The issue is how to understand aseity (SE).

Traditionally:

• Aseity properly belongs to the divine essence

• The essence exists a se (from itself)

• The persons are distinguished only by relations of origin

This leads to the classical claim:

The Father is unbegotten;
the Son is eternally begotten;
the Spirit eternally proceeds.

So the question becomes:
Does eternal derivation exclude self-existence?

---

3. Classical solution: distinguish essence from personal relations

Core distinction

• As God (according to essence):

  • The Son and Spirit are self-existent

• As persons (according to relation of origin):

  • The Son is from the Father

  • The Spirit is from the Father (and the Son, in the West)

This allows the following formulation:

The Son is autotheos with respect to essence,
but not autotheos with respect to personal origin.

This view is found (with different emphases) in:

• Athanasius

• The Cappadocians

• Augustine

• Aquinas

• Calvin (explicitly uses autotheos language)

So:

• No person causes the divine essence

• But the Father communicates the one divine essence to the Son and Spirit eternally

No temporal priority, no inequality, no contingency.

---

4. Why eternal generation does not deny true divinity

Eternal generation is:

• Necessary, not free

• Internal to God

• Ontological, not efficient-causal in a creaturely sense

So the Son is not:

• Dependent like a creature

• Less divine

• Derivative in being God

Rather:

• The Son’s mode of being God is from the Father

• The Father’s mode of being God is unbegotten

The dependence is relational, not essential.

---

5. Two orthodox ways of stating the position

Option A: Classical (most common)

• Aseity belongs strictly to the divine essence

• Persons possess aseity by identity with the essence

• Personal relations do not introduce ontological dependence

Option B: Qualified autotheos of the Son

• The Son is self-existent as God

• But not self-originating as Son

• This preserves both EG/EP and strong divine equality

Both positions are orthodox; they differ in how strongly aseity is predicated of persons rather than essence.

---

6. What would actually be denied by EG/EP

EG and EP deny:

• That the Son and Spirit are unoriginated persons

• That they are independent centers of deity

They do not deny:

• Necessary existence

• Full divinity

• Co-equality

• Co-eternity

• Possession of aseity as God

---

Bottom line

Yes—you can affirm NE and (properly understood) SE while affirming EG and EP, if you:

1. Ground aseity in the divine essence

2. Understand generation and procession as eternal relations, not causal dependence

3. Distinguish what is true of God essentially from what is true of persons relationally

If you want, I can:

• Compare this with social Trinitarian models

• Explain why some modern theologians reject EG/EP

• Map how this plays out in Nicene vs post-Nicene theology

I asked ChatGPT to compare its answer to a question I asked it a while back based on my blogpost HERE. I noted that the answer was similar. 



ChatGPT's answer:

Yes—your recollection is right, and you’re also right to notice that this lines up very closely with the answer I just gave, because John Edwards is effectively pushing one of the strongest possible versions of the “autotheos-with-qualification” position.

What’s helpful now is to be very clear about where Edwards is orthodox, where he is innovative, and where tensions remain.

I’ll proceed in four steps:

1. What Edwards is doing philosophically

2. Why his argument is coherent (not nonsense)

3. Where it presses against classical patristic language

4. How this fits with EG/EP without contradiction

---

1. What Edwards is actually doing

Edwards is making a strict essence-based argument:

If the Son and Father share the same numerical divine essence,
and if self-existence (aseity) belongs essentially to that essence,
then the Son must be self-existent in the same sense as the Father.

This is not a casual claim. It rests on three deep commitments:

• Numerical identity of essence (not merely generic sameness)

• Aseity as an essential property of deity

• Perichoresis as metaphysically real, not just rhetorical

In other words, Edwards is reasoning inside Nicene metaphysics, not outside it.

---

2. Why Edwards’ argument is coherent (not contradictory)

(a) The key move: denying a creaturely inference

The crucial objection is:

“He who exists from another does not exist from himself.”

Edwards’ response is subtle but valid given eternalism:

• That inference is true only for temporal, finite beings

• It relies on priority, dependency, and external causation

• None of those apply in eternal generation

So Edwards is right to say:

• You cannot import creaturely causation logic into eternal divine relations

• Doing so collapses the Creator–creature distinction

This is a standard move in classical theism (you see versions of it in Aquinas, Gregory of Nyssa, and later Reformed scholastics).

---

(b) John 5:26 and “given life”

Edwards’ reading here is actually quite strong:

• “Life in himself” = essential, underived divine life

• “Given” = eternal communication of essence, not acquisition

So:

• The Son does not receive aseity as a property he lacked

• Rather, the Father eternally communicates the self-existent essence

• Which remains self-existent wherever it subsists

This avoids contradiction because:

• The property is not caused

• Only the personal mode of subsistence is relational

That distinction is crucial.

---

3. Where Edwards goes beyond many Fathers

You’re also right that many Church Fathers denied aseity of the Son in a personal sense.

Typical patristic formula:

• Father: unbegotten, a se

• Son: begotten, from the Father

• Spirit: proceeding

What Edwards does differently:

• He refuses to restrict aseity only to the Father

• He insists that aseity belongs to the essence as such

• And since the Son is identical with that essence, aseity cannot be absent

This is not heretical, but it does shift emphasis:

• Fathers often spoke person-first

• Edwards speaks essence-first

That difference explains the tension, without implying contradiction.

---

4. Does this still affirm Eternal Generation and Procession?

Yes—but with a precise understanding.

Edwards affirms:

• The Son is eternally from the Father as Son

• The Father is the personal principle (arche) without denying equality

• Generation is necessary, eternal, internal

But he denies:

• That “from the Father” means ontological dependence

• That it implies lack of aseity

• That it introduces priority or derivation of being

So the structure looks like this:

Aspect	Essence	Person
Existence	A se	Relationally from
Necessity	Absolute	Absolute
Origin	None	Father → Son / Spirit
Divinity	Identical	Identical

Thus:

The Son is from the Father personally,
from himself essentially,
and from neither temporally.

No contradiction arises unless one equivocates between:

• essential existence

• personal origin

---

5. Final evaluation

Your earlier question, my earlier answer, and your present formulation are all converging on the same point:

Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession do not logically require denying the Son’s or Spirit’s aseity—only denying that they are unoriginated persons.

John Edwards’ position is:

• Metaphysically coherent

• Textually motivated

• Within the bounds of Nicene orthodoxy

• But not the dominant patristic idiom

That’s why it feels both compelling and controversial.

If you want, next we could:

• Compare Edwards to Calvin’s autotheos doctrine

• Contrast this with Thomistic accounts of aseity

• Or analyze whether Edwards’ view subtly shifts the monarchia of the Father

Just tell me where you want to go next.

The Double Invocation "Lord, Lord" points to Deity

 

Posted by Artison Rex on Facebook:

The Double Invocation "Lord, Lord" points to Deity

The double invocation "Lord, Lord" (Κύριε, Κύριε in Greek) in the New Testament, when applied to Jesus Christ, is a profound theological claim that deliberately echoes the exclusive reverence reserved for YHWH (יהוה) in the Hebrew Bible. Recall the double invocation "Lord, LORD" (in Hebrew, "Adonai YHWH" or similar) is used in the Old Testament. This is a exclusive and reverent way to address the Most High God. This linguistic and theological parallel is a cornerstone of early Christian Christology, asserting Jesus’ divine identity and authority. Here’s a breakdown of its significance:

1. The Hebrew Bible: "LORD, LORD" as Divine Exclusivity

In the Old Testament, the double invocation "LORD, LORD" (אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, Adonai YHWH) is used exclusively for God, emphasizing His supreme sovereignty, covenantal faithfulness, and uniqueness:

• Genesis 15:2, 8: Abraham addresses God as "Lord GOD" in prayer.

• Deuteronomy 3:24: Moses cries, "Lord GOD... no god in heaven or on earth like You."

• Ezekiel’s visions (e.g., Ezek. 2:4, 37:3): The prophet repeatedly hears God addressed as "Lord GOD."

This doubling was a mark of reverence for Israel’s covenant God, reinforcing monotheism and distinguishing Him from all other beings. To call anyone else "Lord, Lord" in this way would have been unthinkable for Jews. It's a significant title reserved only for God.

2. The New Testament: Jesus as "Lord, Lord"

In the NT, Jesus is addressed with the same double invocation, directly applying to Him language reserved for YHWH:

• Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven... Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?’"

Here, Jesus positions Himself as the divine judge of all humanity—a role exclusively belonging to God (cf. Joel 3:12).

• Luke 6:46:

"Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?"

Jesus ties the title to obedience, mirroring the OT link between calling YHWH "Lord" and keeping His commandments (Deut. 6:4-5).

• Romans 10:9-13:

Paul quotes Joel 2:32 ("Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] will be saved") but applies it to Jesus:

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord... you will be saved."

This equates Jesus with YHWH as the object of saving faith.

By applying "Lord, Lord" to Jesus, the NT authors are equating Him with YHWH. This is part of early Christian Christology, affirming Jesus' divine status. The use of the same title bridges the OT understanding of God with the NT revelation of Jesus as God incarnate.

3. Theological Implications: Jesus as YHWH Incarnate

By invoking "Lord, Lord" for Jesus, the NT authors make a radical claim:

• Divine Authority: Jesus exercises prerogatives unique to God—forgiving sins (Mark 2:7), judging the world (John 5:22), and receiving worship (Matt. 28:17).

• Fulfillment of the Shema: The Shema (Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one") is redefined in 1 Corinthians 8:6 to include Jesus:

"For us there is one God, the Father... and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

• Psalm 110:1: The NT frequently cites this psalm, where YHWH says to the Messiah, "Sit at My right hand" (Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34-36). Jesus is the "Lord" (κύριος) exalted to divine status.

4. Jewish Context and Early Christian Boldness

For Second Temple Jews, calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" would have been provocative, even blasphemous, unless He were truly divine. The early Church’s use of this title:

• Challenged Jewish Monotheism: By including Jesus in the divine identity (cf. John 1:1, 20:28), Christians redefined—but did not abandon—Jewish monotheism.

• Affirmed Resurrection and Exaltation: After His resurrection, Jesus is declared "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), fulfilling the OT hope of YHWH’s reign.

For Jewish Christians, using this title for Jesus would be a radical affirmation of His divinity, considering the strict monotheism of Judaism. This could have been a point of contention, but the NT writers deliberately use this language to make their case.

5. Possible counterarguments or nuances: 

Some might argue that "Lord" (Kyrios) in the NT can sometimes mean just a respectful title, like "sir." But the double invocation and the contexts in which it's used (e.g., judgment scenes, worship) suggest a higher Christology.

Also, connecting this to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4, where YHWH is one. Early Christians like Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 adapt the Shema to include Jesus, showing that the title "Lord" is now shared between the Father and Jesus.

6. Modern Significance

The double invocation "Lord, Lord" underscores:

• Jesus’ Divinity: He is not merely a teacher or prophet but the incarnate God worthy of the same reverence as YHWH.

• Existential Demand: Like the OT, calling Jesus "Lord" requires total allegiance (Luke 6:46; James 2:19).

The significance of this theological claim for early Christian belief and how it positions Jesus within the divine identity of the God of Israel should inform us to how Jesus Christ was viewed within early Christianity and we should submit to it's implications. 

Conclusion

The NT’s application of "Lord, Lord" to Jesus is a deliberate, subversive theological move that identifies Him with the God of Israel. This linguistic bridge between the Testaments anchors Christian faith in Jewish monotheism while proclaiming Jesus as the embodiment of YHWH’s saving presence—"Emmanuel, God with us" (Matt. 1:23).

Is Jesus the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible? Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Singer

 

Is Jesus the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible? Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Singer

https://youtu.be/p96tFCGKPyY

The Chapter That Silences Every Denial of Christ’s Deity

 

The Chapter That Silences Every Denial of Christ’s Deity

https://youtu.be/64Nn5_GynD8