Given the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, Christian theologian John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards] argued contrary to many church fathers that the Son could still be not only necessarily existent (as many of the fathers taught) but also self-existent like the Father (as many church fathers denied). Edwards argued in the following fashion. Tell me if you think if it makes any sense, or if it's nonsense or contradictory.
Edwards argued in the following way (paraphrased): Theologian John Edwards argued in the following manner given John 5:26. Where we see that what is said of the Father, is said of the Son, that is that they have both of them life in themselves: And without doubt the Son hath life in himself in the same sense and propriety that the Father hath life in himself. The essence and life of the Father are self-existent; therefore the essence and life of the Son are so too. The antecedent is evident. The consequence is as evident, for the life and essence of the Son and of the Father are the same, or they are not: If they be not the same, then the Father and the Son have different essences, and consequently are different Gods; Or if the essence be the same, it must be a self-existent essence and life, unless it can be proved, that self-existent essence and life, and non self-existent essence and life are the same. Meaning a contradiction.
But it will be objected, that in the text before mentioned it is said that this self-life is given. When the Son said "as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself" he plainly declares the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father, for the Son has life, just as the Father has life, namely, a natural and essential life of his own. This signifies the natural and essential procession from him. This giving does not imply that the Son had not that in himself which is said to be given by the Father. Though self-existence be given to the Son by the Father, yet it is a proper self-existence. It is no more a contradiction than the Father raising the Son from the dead, and the Son raising himself from the dead.
If it is the essential property of the Father to exist of himself, then the Son must have a self-existence, otherwise he has not the same essence with the Father. The Son is of himself, because he is of the Father whose essence is his, and that essence is self-existent. This is implied when Jesus said in John 14:10 "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Their existence is mutual and reciprocal and they are and subsist in one another; which is called perichoresis/circumincession. This follows from their being the same numerical substance: if one of the persons be self-existent, the other must be so too. In Christ all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form. There can nothing belonging to the deity be lacking in Christ, and consequently not self-existence, which is of the very nature of the deity. Whence it follows, that the Son has his existence not only from his Father, but from himself.Someone might say, he that exists from another, does not exist from himself. But Edwards answers, that of finite and created being this is a true maxim; but it is not true concerning the infinite and uncreated Being of God. If we speak of beings of the former sort, it is supposed that he that exists from another was after the other, and it would be true. But when we speak of an eternal being or generation, it is otherwise, for then there is neither before or after. Wherefore, we must not argue from a corporeal and human generation to a spiritual and divine one, and such as was from eternity, for then we confound uncreated and eternal beings, with those that are created and finite. The Son was produced or generated out of the substance of the Father, but that substance did not exist before the production of the Son, for the production was from all eternity. the existence could not precede that generation, because they were both eternally together.
Thursday, December 31, 2065
Friday, December 30, 2050
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?
Monday, April 21, 2025
Review of the Dialogue Between Rabbi Tovia Singer and New Testament Unitarian Sam Tideman
Someone in the comments of this Blog asked me to review a dialogue between a New Testament Unitarian named Sam Tideman and the well known anti-missionary rabbi Tovia Singer. Here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/Jg40zoYJIrM . The following are some of my comments and observations.
I listened to the entire dialogue and I didn't hear anything particularly new or devastating to Trinitarianism. It was a long video, I can only give comments on highlights. I can't review every video everyone asks me to review. I would like to, but I don't have the time. I agreed to do it in this case because in the past I've found both speakers interesting.
Every objection I heard in the dialogue/discussion I can or have refuted or have heard Anthony Rogers address and refute before. Though, not being fluent in the Biblical languages, I wouldn't be able to address the detailed arguments based on Hebrew or Greek. But Anthony Rogers can and has addressed the linguistic issues. There are a lot of good defenders of Trinitarianism alive today, but I think Anthony Rogers is the best one around. I recommend his videos and debates located in his YouTube channel, and in other people's channels. Also his older articles. He has a number of videos addressing rabbi Tovia Singer's objections. I've linked to many of Anthony's videos in this Blog. People can browse or search Trinity Notes.
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ousias1/videos
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html
Many (if not All) of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w
Unless otherwise indicated, I'll be quoting the ESV for the most part. I'll sometimes quote other translations that are less biased [e.g. for Josh. 5:14 where "worshipped" isn't used in a biased manner, so that the idea of obeisance might be a possible and optional interpretation].
- At 0:07:40 into the video Tovia relayed asking some students, if they were God, and wanted to convey to mankind there's only one God, what would they put in the Bible. After he gives his usual spiel, he then goes on to contradict himself [or at least cause tension in his views] by admitting the Tanakh sometimes refers to creatures representing God [whether humans like Moses or angels] as God. He called it an "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanach. Exactly.
Well, to answer his original question about how I would inspire the Bible if Unitarianism were true, I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT use "elohim" or "adonai" to refer to God as the Tanakh does. Why? Because, as Anthony Rogers points out, in the Bible the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; *both of these words are PLURAL nouns in Hebrew*. This BY ITSELF doesn't prove the Trinity, and not all instances can be used to support the Trinity [e.g. sometimes it refers to men or angels, etc.], but some can. If God were absolutely singular, then it would have been wise for God to not use "elohim" and "adonai."
Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:
1. Plural Verbs
o Genesis 20:13
English Translation: God caused me to wander
Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They caused me to wander
o Genesis 35:7
English Translation: God appeared
Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They appeared
o 2Samuel 7:23
English Translation: God went
Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They went
o Psalms 58:12
English Translation: God that judges
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
Literally: Gods that judge
2. Plural Adjectives
o Deuteronomy 5:26
English Translation: living God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
Literally: Living Gods8
o Joshua 24:19
English Translation: holy God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
Literally: Holy Gods
3. Plural Nouns
o Ecclesiastes 12:1
English Translation: thy Creator
Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
Literally: Creators
o Isaiah 54:5
English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
Literally: Makers, Husbands9
o Malachi 1:6
English Translation: Master
Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
Literally: Masters10
o Daniel 7:18
English Translation: Most High
Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
Literally: Most High Ones
footnotes:
8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.
END QUOTE
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. Pretty unwise for God to do that, if there's no sense in which God is multiple in His unity.
Regarding Tovia's admission of the "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanakh that someone other than the Father is called God, he can't just chalk it up to it always referring to creatures. Sometimes the Angel of Yahweh is worshipped [or at least bowed down to in obeisance ] in ways seemingly only Yahweh is supposed to be. And the Bible claims or describes the Angel of Yahweh to have done things or to do things other passages [sometimes in the same book] say Yahweh did. Rogers goes into this very well and in-depth. Just Watch Rogers' videos (including his debates). I don't have time to elaborate much. For example these passages:
Judges 2:1-2 [COMPARE with the first of the 10 Commandments where Yahweh says He did it.]
1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And HE SAID, "I BROUGHT YOU UP FROM EGYPT and brought you into the land that *I SWORE* to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break *MY COVENANT* covenant with you,
2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done?
Joshua 5:13-15 NASB95
13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?"
14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"
15 The captain of the LORD's host said to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so.
Presumably, this commander of the LORD's army is the Angel of the LORD, yet Joshua takes his sandals off in reverence, or even worship. Similar to what Moses did at Burning Bush.
- At 1:38:52 into the video this passage of Jos. 5:13-15 is addressed. But neither Sam nor Tovia addresses or even mentions the issues of Joshua being commanded to take off his sandals because he's on Holy Ground [presumably due the commander's presence]. The answer Tovia and Sam the host give about it being reverence/obeisance [while true in other circumstances] doesn't seem to fit here because of the issue of Holy Ground and the removal of sandals. About 20% way through the video Sam [with Tovia's approval and encouragement] plays/pretends to be a Trinitarian to help Steelman the Trinitarian position and arguments, rather than Strawmanning them. However the host doesn't play the part of Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with the Burning Bush incident where something very similar happens. And where a similar command to remove one's sandals is given. So much so are the similarities apparent, that it almost self-prompts the question of whether the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh in the Burning Bush is the same person here in Joshua 5. Compare Exo. 3:2 and the entire chapters with each other. Sam failed at Steelmanning and Tovia failed anticipating Trinitarian rebuttals.
Exodus 3:2 And the ANGEL of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
A plausible case could be made that the Angel of the LORD is worshipped there. Again, see Rogers' videos for more details.
- At 0:29:40 into the video they address Gen. 1:26. The answers they give don't anticipate or overcome Rogers' arguments in this video Here:
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections (The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
https://youtu.be/6Yf2t3TnTRg
- At 1:11:25 Sam, and then at 1:13:12 Tovia, address the issue of whether God can be seen or not. Sam mentioned the apparent contradiction of Ex. 33:11 and 19 [same chapter!]. Tovia gives his answer, but Sam again didn't play the Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with Num. 12:16.
Exo 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
COMPARE WITH THE SEEMING OPPOSITE
Exo 33:19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Sam should have brought up, and Tovia should have addressed, this passage:
Num.12:6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and HE BEHOLDS THE FORM OF THE LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Or passages like:
Exodus 24:10 ESV [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Trinitarianism can easily explain the apparent contradiction. When God was seen in the Old Testament, they only saw the pre-incarnate Son. But never the Father. That's how God was both seen and never seen in the Old Testament.
Somewhere in the video they mention Jacob's encounter wrestling an angel. Then Tovia says that Hos. 12 makes it clear it's only a mere angel. But he doesn't address, nor does Sam [playing Trinitarian] mention how and why that passage seems to teach the opposite in the opinion of many Trinitarians. Tovia is probably referring to Hos. 12:4, but the very next verse seems to give further clarification that implies it was YHWH Himself. Which fits perfectly well with versions of Trinitarianism that identify the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Jesus.
[4] He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us— [5] the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is his memorial name:
- At 1:24:42 Sam brought up John 20:28 where Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." Again Sam doesn't play the Trinitarian Advocate very well. He should have given pushback to Tovia by pointing out the text says Thomas "said TO HIM" [i.e. said TO Jesus]. See also Andrew Schumacher's opening statement in his debate with Sean Griffin Here: https://youtu.be/ljaGlmu4XZU. It starts at 9:23, but the relevant part is at 13:15 where Andrew starts talking about the Jewish use of the possessive "our" or "my" with respect to God and its significance in the New Testament in calling Jesus OUR Lord [as well as here in John 20:28 "MY Lord and MY God.]. Andrew makes an interesting case that the possessive was reserved for Yahweh alone. In which case, this suggests or is at least very consistent with Jesus' full and proper Deity.
- At 1:45:13 Sam says Jesus in Hebrews worships God. That's consistent with ALL [AFAIK] models of the Trinity without detriment to Christ's true and proper Deity. Then Sam says at 1:35:37 that Jesus is not worshipped anywhere in the New Testament. But Heb. 1:6 [in the very book under discussion!] commands Jesus is to be worshipped by the angels. As many [most?] scholars point out, based on the Greek of Heb. 1:6, that the author of Hebrews in this verse is clearly alluding to two places in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament [viz. Deut. 32:43 & Ps. 97:7]. Places where the angels and/or the members of the Divine Council are commanded to worship Yahweh. What can this be but an Old Testament command for the most exalted created creatures to give full-orbed WORSHIP [in the FULLEST sense] to Yahweh. That these passages are applied to Jesus would be bewildering if Unitarianism were true and Jesus weren't proper/full Deity. It would be blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews doesn't even flinch or show any scruples in making such a connection and application. No hesitation, no reservation and no moral unease despite possible perceived IDOLATRY in the minds of his audience. The author(s) of Hebrews was likely a Second Temple Jew who wished to avoid any semblance of idolatry. And, as I understand it, while 2nd Temple Jews sometimes had exalted creatures as mediators [Metatron, Enoch, et al.], they almost never [or absolutely never] made the idolatrous mistake of directing worship to their mediators.
This fact, that the worship of Yahweh in Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 in the LXX is applied to Jesus, along with the Hebrews author in verses 10-12 applying Ps. 102 [which was originally about Yahweh] to Jesus ought to be near definitive proof of Jesus' proper/full Deity. The author not only seems to predicate Jesus as Yahweh, but also applies to Jesus the divine attributes of Yahweh described in Ps. 102 [immutability, eternality, Creatorship, & perpetual unfading ever "youthful" LIFE]. The common Unitarian rebuttal that it refers to the New Creation rather than the Original Creation seems to me patently Ad Hoc/contrived.
BTW, Sam is mostly correct about church history and Trinitarian history IN THIS VIDEO (not necessarily in other videos), but with his own bias. But he was fairly objective. Some Trinitarians are more biased on these subjects of history by comparison. I recommend reading Daniel Waterland's defenses of the Trinity. I've read most of what he's written on the subject of the Trinity and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND them. I've linked to his works on this Blog Here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/daniel-waterland-on-christs-divinity.html
A lot of people criticize Waterland for a number of things. But he's more reliable than his opponents claim. Don't just take someone's word against him.
Friday, April 11, 2025
Can The Son of God Be Both Eternally Generated By the Father And Also Self-Existent?
I'm reading Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards (1637-1716) [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)]. At about 68% of the way through [started around page 33 in some editions] I came across an interesting argument for Jesus' Self-Existence despite being Eternally Generated by the Father.
Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards
A Supplement to the Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards
So, I asked ChatGPT the following.
ChatGPT said:
This argument from John Edwards, as you've paraphrased it, is complex, but it appears internally coherent within the framework of a certain theological tradition, particularly in the context of classical Christian Trinitarianism. To evaluate whether it makes sense or is contradictory, let’s break down the key elements of his reasoning:
1. The Argument for Self-Existence of the Son
Edwards begins with the claim that John 5:26 (where Jesus says, “as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”) teaches that the Son has "life in Himself" in the same way as the Father does. The claim Edwards makes is that the Son must have a self-existent life, just as the Father does, because their essence and life are the same. If the essence of the Father and the Son were different, then the Father and the Son would be two different gods, which Edwards would reject.
-
The Essence of the Father and Son are the Same: This is the core of Edwards' argument. He is asserting that if the Father and the Son have the same essence, then whatever is true of the Father (e.g., self-existence) must be true of the Son. The claim is that self-existence cannot be separated from divine essence. Therefore, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well.
2. The Challenge of the "Giving" of Life
A significant part of Edwards' argument responds to the apparent contradiction in John 5:26, which says the Father grants the Son the ability to have life in Himself. At first glance, this seems to suggest that the Son did not have life in Himself before, which could imply that He is not self-existent in the same way the Father is.
-
Edwards' Response: Edwards argues that "giving" life to the Son does not negate the Son's self-existence. He draws a parallel to the resurrection of Christ, where the Father raises the Son, but that does not mean the Son is not capable of raising Himself. The act of "giving" life is not contradictory to the idea of self-existence because it pertains to the eternal generation, which does not imply temporal dependence or creation. The Son's self-existence is properly His, even if it is "given" to Him by the Father.
3. Eternal Generation and Perichoresis
Edwards moves on to discuss the doctrine of eternal generation, which posits that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. He also refers to the concept of perichoresis (mutual indwelling), where the Father and the Son are interpenetrating and mutually indwelling in each other. This means that the Father and the Son are so closely united that their existence is reciprocal.
-
Mutual Essence: Edwards argues that since the Father and Son share the same essence, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well. There is no contradiction here, as he is distinguishing between the finite, temporal generation of creatures and the eternal, divine generation of the Son. The Son is not a created being, and the generation of the Son is not a temporal act, but an eternal and necessary one.
4. Objection and Answer to "Existence from Another"
One of the key objections Edwards anticipates is the idea that if the Son exists from the Father, He does not exist from Himself. Edwards counters this by noting that such reasoning only applies to finite, created beings. For an eternal being like the Son, the categories of "before" and "after" do not apply because the generation of the Son is eternal. The Son's generation is not a temporal event, but a timeless relationship of mutual existence within the divine nature.
Evaluation: Does It Make Sense? Is It Contradictory?
In the context of classical Christian Trinitarian theology, Edwards' argument is plausible and consistent. It hinges on a few foundational theological premises:
-
The eternal generation of the Son: The Son is not created but eternally begotten by the Father.
-
Perichoresis: The Father and Son are not two separate divine substances but one substance in which each person fully shares the essence.
-
Self-existence of the divine essence: If the Father is self-existent, the Son, sharing the same essence, must also be self-existent.
If we accept these premises, Edwards' argument does not appear contradictory. He is drawing careful distinctions between temporal and eternal, finite and infinite realities. His rejection of the idea that "giving" life to the Son negates His self-existence aligns with the broader theological tradition, which often stresses the mystery of divine relations and how they differ from human understandings of generation and dependence.
However, it may be difficult to follow or accept without accepting these traditional theological concepts. The idea of eternal generation and perichoresis is not intuitively obvious and requires a certain metaphysical framework, which not everyone would share. For example, someone holding to a more unitarian or Arian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son would find this reasoning problematic.
Conclusion
Edwards’ argument is coherent within a classical Trinitarian framework, especially when understood as distinguishing between the eternal, necessary relationships within the Godhead and the temporal, contingent relationships that govern created beings. It avoids contradictions by carefully navigating the distinction between the temporal language of "giving" life and the eternal, necessary self-existence of the Son. However, it may seem mysterious or even contradictory to those who do not accept the metaphysical foundations of traditional Trinitarianism.
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Gavin Ortlund on John 10 and Jesus' Appeal to Ps. 82
The following video by Gavin Ortlund is his first response to the debate between Atheist Alex O'Connor and Christian apologist and philosopher David Wood. Below it is the link to the actual debate.
The KEY Point in the Alex O'Connor vs. David Wood Debate (The Divine Council in John 10)<
https://youtu.be/TJb_kw_FwgE?si=rHO2Hphf84E0TeVy
The actual debate:
DEBATE: Did Jesus Claim To Be God?
https://youtu.be/zbVeuKzRRrE?si=ZkHv9XwyG8T7csOT
Sunday, April 6, 2025
A Video Playlist of Mark's Christology by Exploring Reality
In a video by InspiringPhilosophy, Michael Jones recommended the following playlist of videos by Exploring Reality in proof of Jesus full and true Deity. See also my blogpost HERE.
Mark's Christology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ76TRyjCoc&list=PLotwpY3OESFyFUWAmrsy9_rRoB0jr4VGV
Sunday, March 23, 2025
Answering Some Objections to Trinitarian Models That Affirm Jesus As The Angel of the LORD
The following is an objection to Trinitarian models that affirm that Jesus is the Angel of the LORD [Malak Yahweh] that I encountered on Facebook. Followed by my answers and solutions. Not all Trinitarians believe the Old Testament "Angel/Messenger of the LORD" is the pre-incarnate person who is Jesus in the New Testament. I DO believe and affirm it.
Know (or Remember) that the word for "angel(s)" in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament just means "messenger." By itself, it doesn't tell us the metaphysical nature of the personal entity. Context can sometimes help us determine whether the messenger is human or a supernatural personal entity which we usually mean by an "angel." Like the angel Gabriel or the angel Michael [or even Satan]. So, it would be incorrect for a Non-Trinitarian to say that THE Angel of Yahweh must be a created being, or cannot be a second person in God (or within the Godhead, or of the Trinity). Trinitarians like myself and Anthony Rogers show that the best explanation for all the data on the Malak Yahweh is that He [whom we believe to be the Son] is fully divine as the one who sends/sent Him [the Father]. See Anthony Rogers' videos on YouTube. HERE is a link to his CHANNEL. He also has some excellent ARTICLES HERE.
The Non-Trinitarian wrote:
You and others like you believe that "the Angel of the LORD" is Jesus. You do this because he's called "God" or "the LORD" in places, and then transpose divine attributes upon him, despite an obvious lack:
For one, HE CANNOT FORGIVE SINS: "he will not forgive your transgression, because My name is in him", i.e., he is only sent in God's name.
For two, HE DOESN'T KNOW ALL THINGS: "now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld your son, your only-begotten, from me", i.e., he didn't know Abraham's heart.
For three, HE DOESN'T ACCEPT THE WORSHIP OF CHRISTIANS: "see that you do not do it! I am a fellow-servant or yours with your brothers, the prophets", i.e., as in Hebrews 1, where "angels" and "prophets" are used interchangeably.
Rather than using these concepts to show that the Son is greater than angels, Trinitarians, Oneness, and all deity-of-christ believers have mistakenly corrupted the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ --- because they didn't believe that these things God has given into the hand of Man. (Genesis 1:26; 9:6)
Here's my response:
.
//You and others like you believe that "the Angel of the LORD" is Jesus. You do this because he's called "God" or "the LORD" in places, and then transpose divine attributes upon him, despite an obvious lack://
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I'll answer each objection in a new post. I don't have time for a debate.
//For one, HE CANNOT FORGIVE SINS: "he will not forgive your transgression, because My name is in him", i.e., he is only sent in God's name.//
Only God can forgive sins. So there would be no point in saying He won't forgive your sins, if He can't anyway. Rather, the fact that it says He won't forgive your sins implies that He can, but won't. I don't know about the Hebrew, but in English it doesn't say He cannot/can't, but He will not/won't. It says He will not BECAUSE the Father's name is in Him. If your interpretation were correct, it ought to say He can't forgive sins because Yahweh's name IS NOT in Him. The passage is saying something similar to Exo. 34:7 which says of Yahweh, "...forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, BUT WHO WILL BY NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY..." God could forgive, but all things being equal, God won't clear the guilty. The good news of the Gospel is that things are no longer equal in that God [through the cross] did something that makes universal forgiveness possible to all who will repent and believe the Gospel. Also having God's name in Him means He has God's nature and presence, which implies full deity. Because "name" can mean nature, character and attributes. That's why the Jews were careful with what name they chose for their children, because it would/may affect and reflect his destiny. It's also why Ps. 9:10 says:
[10] And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.
Meaning, those who know God's character, attributes and nature put their trust in Him because by knowing those things they also know His a reliable source of help and blessing. It's not about knowing the mere spelling and pronunciation of a word.
Similarly notice Prov. 30:4
[4] Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!
The verse is not asking whether you know the spelling and pronunciation of the word YHWH. They are Jews. They already know it. It's rhetorically asking who among you knows and fully grasps the incomprehensible nature of Yahweh? The implied answer is no one. While Yahweh can be truly *Apprehended* in the creaturely mind, His nature cannot be exhaustively *Comprehended*. Then when it asks whether you know the name of the Son, it's implying the Son's nature cannot be exhaustively comprehended either. Implying His sharing the same nature as His Father.
[27] All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
This verse [paralleled in Luke 10:22] implies the incomprehensibility of both the Father and the Son, and therefore the equal Divinity of both. Since only what is divine is absolutely incomprehensible to creatures; and only what is divine can comprehend that which is incomprehensible in that uniquely divine way. That only the Father can comprehend the Son, implies the Son's inomprehensibility [to all creatures], and therefore implying the Son's full deity. That the Son can comprehend the infinite incomprehensibility [to creatures] of God the Father implies the Son is not a creature, but is as fully divine as the Father. That's also why 1 Cor. 2:10-11 & Rom. 8:27 teaches the full Divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.
[10] these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
[27] And he who searches hearts knows what is the MIND OF THE SPIRIT, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Some might give the following objection. That there are a number of places in the Old Testament where Yahweh talks about His name [in the sense of "presence"] being "there" in a location like a city or a temple/building [e.g. 1 Ki. 8:16, 29; 9:3; 11:36; 2 Ki. 23:27; 2 Chron. 6:5-6; Neh. 1:9]. That that doesn't prove that the city or building is God. How can a city be God?!?!? So why should the name Yahweh within the Angel of the LORD prove that that Messenger is equally God? But that presupposes that the presence of God in the temple or city isn't the person of the Holy Spirit. If it is, then that fits with the full Deity of both the Son and Spirit. The Name of Yahweh is shared by all three persons of the Trinity.
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Notice it doesn't say in the nameS [plural], but in the name [singular]. Notice too that in the Greek it has the definite article "the" for each one mentioned. That the word "name" is singular affirms equality and a shared nature, as well as the genuine personhood of each. That the definite article is used of each precludes Modalism or Oneness theology. It does NOT say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" which would better fit with Modalism or Oneness. But rather it says "of THE Father, and of THE Son, and of THE Holy Spirit" which better fits with Trinitarianism.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
//For two, HE DOESN'T KNOW ALL THINGS: "now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld your son, your only-begotten, from me", i.e., he didn't know Abraham's heart.//
This objection doesn't work for the following reasons. Does Gen. 11:5 imply that Yahweh is not omniscient because He had to come down to the Tower of Babel to see what's happening? Or what about when Yahweh had to visit Sodom and Gomorrah to see what was happening? Does it disprove Yahweh's omniscience? Obviously not.
[5] And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built.
[20] Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, [21] I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”
The phrase "according to the outcry that has come to me" makes it clear that Yahweh is speaking [from a Trinitarian perspective this is talking about either the Father, or possibly the Son who is the Angel of the LORD]. Since it is to absolute Deity that sins are an ultimate offense toward/against.
Also, when it says "now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld your son," it doesn't refer to a lack of knowledge. Since God's tests and trials are often likened to the refining of metals through fire. Not only does the fire reveal what's there, it purifies and improves what's there. So, it didn't exist in that form prior. Before Abraham was tested by being commanded to sacrifice his son, his faith hadn't yet risen to the point it eventually did after passing the test. That's why NOW [at THAT time] the Angel can know it, because that kind of faith and commitment didn't exist beforehand/prior. See Prov. 17:3; Ps. 66:10; Isa. 48:10; Zech. 13:9; Jam. 1:12.
[3] The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tests hearts.
[10] For you, O God, have tested us; you have tried us as silver is tried.
[12] Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.
[9] And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call upon my name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are my people’; and they will say, ‘The LORD is my God.’”
[10] Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
I've also written two blogposts on Jesus' omniscience here:
Jesus' Omniscience
Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
//For three, HE DOESN'T ACCEPT THE WORSHIP OF CHRISTIANS: "see that you do not do it! I am a fellow-servant or yours with your brothers, the prophets", i.e., as in Hebrews 1, where "angels" and "prophets" are used interchangeably.//
That's not Jesus speaking in Rev. 19:10. That's clear if you read the entire verse. Nor is it Jesus speaking in Rev. 22:8-9.
[10] Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers WHO HOLD TO THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Jesus does receive worship from Christians and angels.
Hebrews 1:6, which is about angels worshipping Jesus, is a quotation and allusion to the Septuagint's Greek translation of Deut. 32:43 and Ps. 97:7. These passages are about how all spiritual and supernatural entities ought to worship Yahweh, yet it is surprisingly applied to Jesus. Something which would be blasphemous if Jesus isn't fully absolute Deity. Unitarians should have a major problem with this verse.
Similarly, in Phil. 2:10-11 Paul takes what is arguably the most monotheistic Verse in the most monotheistic Chapter in the entire Old Testament and applies it, and its teaching about worshipping Yahweh, TO JESUS! This would again be blasphemous if Jesus isn't absolutely divine as the Father is. The type of bowing was the kind reserved for the one true God. The kind forbidden in Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9. The kind that God condemned when it was directed toward Baal.
[4] But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”
See also my blogpost:
Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit
[10] so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW, in heaven AND ON EARTH and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
[23] By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘TO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’
The worship of the post-resurrection and post-ascension Jesus in Luke 24:52 and John 20:28 goes beyond mere obeisance.
[52] And THEY WORSHIPED HIM and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
[28] Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Notice Thomas answered "Him" [i.e. Jesus]. Thomas wasn't addressing God the Father. Also, the use "my Lord and my God" is like Ps. 35:23, but in reverse [the words are switched]. The use of the possessive "my" and "our" in relation to a elohim/theos/God was reserved by Jews for Yahweh alone. Yet Thomas called Jesus "MY God."
//Rather than using these concepts to show that the Son is greater than angels, Trinitarians, Oneness, and all deity-of-christ believers have mistakenly corrupted the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ --- because they didn't believe that these things God has given into the hand of Man. (Genesis 1:26; 9:6) //
This doesn't really need a reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)