Col 2:9; Samuel Clarke on the Godhead Friday, Nov 30 2012 

Samuel Clarke says in his The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, page 124, point 645,

“Col. ii, 9. For in Him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Ch. i, ver.19, It pleased the Father, that in him should all Fulness dwell, and Joh. xiv, 10, The Father that dwelleth in Me, he doth the Works.”

In explaining his view of the term Godhead, Clarke says on page 479,

“The Father, God Almighty…And that with Him, by immediate union with him, and ineffable Communication of Being and Power from him, always Are his Son and his Spirit: So that, not in his own person only, but in and by his Son and Spirit, is His  divine Power, Glory and Majesty, continually and plenarily manifested.”

Mat 24:36; Is Christ Omniscient as Well as The Father? Friday, Nov 30 2012 

Mat 24: 29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

From the context here in this passage pertaining to the Son of Man, and the overwhelming consensus of the commentators I have read, I must judge this statement in verse 36 to be referring to the person of Christ speaking through his human nature not his divine nature. Thus, the person of Christ respecting his divine nature does indeed know the day and the hour.  Some may ask, “But doesn’t he say, the Father alone?”  Yes, as he is speaking as a real man. In order for Christ to be a proper mediator he would have to experience human ignorance to be tempted in the same way we are. (Heb 4:15) In this time period, the foundations are being laid, but not finished for the Son to be honored as the Father. (John 5:23) Thus, it would have been perfectly natural, for a godly man at this time to refer to the Father alone as the omniscient one disregarding a trinity of divine persons. However, I do agree with Saint Basil and Samuel Clarke who affirm that the Father alone is Omniscient absolutely. The Son receives all things from the Father.

Even if this passage did refer to the Son’s Divine nature, Saint Basil has a powerful reply in his Letter 236 (In some older works Letter 391),

“Now no man seems to be a general expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage there is none good but one, that is, God [Mark 10:18-DS]. For even in this passage the Son does not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature. But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words no man to have been uttered with the understood addition of first. So with the passage No man knows the Son but the Father;” … 1 Corinthians 1:24 Now of wisdom knowledge is plainly a part; and if in any part He falls short, He is not an image of the whole; and how can we understand the Father not to have shown that day and that hour— the smallest portion of the ages— to Him through Whom He made the ages? How can the Creator of the universe fall short of the knowledge of the smallest portion of the things created by Him? How can He who says, when the end is near, that such and such signs shall appear in heaven and in earth, be ignorant of the end itself? When He says, The end is not yet. Matthew 24:6 He makes a definite statement, as though with knowledge and not in doubt. Then further, it is plain to the fair enquirer that our Lord says many things to men, in the character of man; as for instance, give me to drink John 4:7 is a saying of our Lord, expressive of His bodily necessity; and yet the asker was not soulless flesh, but Godhead using flesh endued with soul. So in the present instance no one will be carried beyond the bounds of the interpretation of true religion, who understands the ignorance of him who had received all things according to the œconomy, and was advancing with God and man in favour and wisdom. [This agrees with my view-DS]

2…The wording of Matthew is of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. That of Mark runs, But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32 What is noticeable in these passages is this; that Matthew says nothing about the ignorance of the Son, and seems to agree with Mark as to sense in saying but my Father only. [This point is confirmed in the ESV Textual Commentary[1] and in the WH Text[2]-DS] Now I understand the word only to have been used in contradistinction to the angels, but that the Son is not included with His own servants in ignorance.

He could not say what is false Who said All things that the Father has are Mine, John 16:15 but one of the things which the Father has is knowledge of that day and of that hour. In the passage in Matthew, then, the Lord made no mention of His own Person, as a matter beyond controversy, and said that the angels knew not and that His Father alone knew, tacitly asserting the knowledge of His Father to be His own knowledge too, because of what He had said elsewhere, as the Father knows me even so know I the Father, John 10:15 and if the Father has complete knowledge of the Son, nothing excepted, so that He knows all knowledge to dwell in Him, He will clearly be known as fully by the Son with all His inherent wisdom and all His knowledge of things to come. This modification, I think, may be given to the words of Matthew, but my Father only. Now as to the words of Mark, who appears distinctly to exclude the Son from the knowledge, my opinion is this. No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known: that is, the cause of the Son’s knowing comes from the Father. To a fair hearer there is no violence in this interpretation, because the word only is not added as it is in Matthew. Mark’s sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father. This is very decorous and becoming the divine nature to say of the Son, because He has, His knowledge and His being, beheld in all the wisdom and glory which become His Godhead, from Him with Whom He is consubstantial.”[3]

To any semi-arian brothers here:  If you must deny homoousios but affirm that the Son is not created out of nothing but begotten of the Father, you are not worthy of Church censure but are to be considered a brother. However, I think it is safer to affirm homoousios due to all of the texts that use the word Theos to refer to Christ’s divine nature, which are plentiful in the NT and are vital aspects of NT Soteriology.

The Sabellian Eastern Orthodox Part 2 Friday, Nov 30 2012 

John of Damascus On Holy Images, Part 1 page 4,

“I believe in one God, the source of all things, without beginning, uncreated, immortal, everlasting, incomprehensible, bodiless, invisible, uncircumscribed, without form. I believe in one supersubstantial being, one divine Godhead in three entities, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and I adore Him alone with the worship of latreia. I adore one God, one Godhead but three Persons, God the Father, God the Son made flesh, and God the Holy Ghost, one God. ”

This is EXACTLY the same way that the Latin West describes God; and may I add he is writing after the period of the Cappadocians by about 300 years. Notice Damascus states that he believes in only one being in the Godhead, yet three persons. Notice he does not say three beings, to affirm a generic unity, but 1 being to affirm a numeric unity.

On the Holy Spirit Thursday, Nov 29 2012 

Passages that Prove the Holy Spirit’s Distinct Personhood

John 16: 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. [Thus the Son distinguishes himself from the Holy Spirit]

Acts 8: 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”

Acts 10: 19 While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you.20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.”

Acts 11: 12 The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 


Acts 13:2  While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

1 Cor 12:11 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. [Here we have a distinct will]

Mat 28: 19 Go therefore andmake disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

2 Cor 13: 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Eph 4: 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. [This is not changing emotion but anthropopathism-thus this is volitional]

Rom 8: 26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. [Here his intercession distinguishes him from the Father]

John 15:26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me [Spirit distinct from the Father]


Passages that Prove the Holy Spirit’s Divinity With Respect to the Ontological Trinity

John 15: 26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. [This passage shows that the Holy Spirit is not said to be created out of nothing but to have proceeded from the Father]

Heb 9: 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Mat 28: 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [Equality with reference to nature]

2 Cor 13: 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Therefore, it has been proven that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person from the Father, and the Son and this includes having his own will. Now to the issue of the Son’s Generation and the Spirit’s Procession: One interesting passage that must be faced is John 8: 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.  

Here, in the verse, the Greek for proceeded is, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai. It is in the 2nd aorist tense, thus denoting a past tense, hence the translation is, “proceedED”.

In John 15:26, we have the Greek, ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai, which is in the present tense, and active voice denoting a continuous process, thus the translation, “proceeds”.

Thus John 8 pertains to the Son’s activity in the economia, while John 15 pertains to the Holy Spirit’s activity in Eternity.

John of Damascus said, speaking of the difference between procession and eternal generation,

“We have an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him), and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam’s son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam’s rib (for she was not begotten). These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into existence.”

Here in our analogy, Adam would represent the Father, Eve, the Spirit and Seth the Son; Unbegotten-ness, Procession and Generation. Procession bears nature but not gender. Generation bears nature and gender. However, there is a point to recognize: In Gen 1:27 we read “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Both the male and female gender are aspects of God. I think it is no accident then that just as Eve, the female, proceeded from Adam, the Spirit bears the female characteristics of God. In the New Testament we have an emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s nurturing and comforting qualities. I didn’t say that the Holy Spirit’s comforting qualities were confined to the economia.  God’s mercy is not dependent on him being merciful to creatures. Just because the divine persons display certain of their qualities IN the economia does not mean that those qualities are confined to the economia or dependent on a creation. That would be Pagan thinking where everything’s nature is dependent on its opposite.

Therefore, we know that the Procession of the Holy Spirit is an eternal and ontological extension from the Father, just like the Eternal Generation of the Son. Thus the difference, as Damascus pointed out, is in the mode of these actions, not their essential nature. In my Sundry Philosophical Queries Regarding the Trinity, I stated, “Truly, if nature directs activity, then the Son does eternally extend from a necessity of some Idea in God’s Mind.” This assumes of course that God’s nature is his thinking, which is a fundamental aspect of Clarkian Calvinistic philosophy. Now, just as we have seen, that the Creation and the Son are different with reference to ontology, due to the fact that they extend from different “places” in God, the former from God’s will, the latter from his nature, even so, the Son and the Spirit, both extending from nature must extend from different Ideas within God’s mind. This is how we distinguish eternal generation and eternal procession.

Therefore we distinguish the Son and the Spirit:

  1. By the fact that the Scripture demonstrates that they are distinct subjects, thus distinguishing by numeric nature.
  1. By the fact that the Holy Spirit has his own will.
  1. By the gender specific relations they display in the economia.
  1. By sourcing the two persons in different Ideas (“places”) in God’s mind.

Now I admit that these points do not give us exhaustive knowledge of this issue, but proportional knowledge capable of providing the necessary elements for the Doctrine of God and its functions in Systematic Theology, Metaphysics and Epistemology.

Now to acknowledge an objection: The west argues that the double procession distinguishes procession from generation while the East has no distinction.

  1. I have just shown we do have a way to distinguish the two eternal extensions, even though that explanation is not exhaustive. The Eastern Orthodox may struggle to do this because they cannot speak of God ad intra (Due to the huperousia principle involved in their Essence and Energies Distinction), thus distinguishing the different “places” in God becomes impossible.
  1.  Describing the circumstances of an action does not define the action, even in a proportional sense. If I said that I gwiddlesnarked from school and from work, the numeric circumstances of my gwiddlesnarking tell you nothing of what it means to gwiddlesnark.


Awesome Triadology Dialogue By the Guys At Grace Bible Church Wednesday, Nov 28 2012 

Grace Bible Church-

This was an absolutely amazing conversation between these guys! Way to go guys! This may sound too parental but I am so proud of you guys. In a few short months you have a firm grasp on concepts that took me years to grasp. The following link contains the audio:

At the 32 minute mark the Greek work on the different processions was excellent.

At the 48-49 minute mark Aristotle came up. I think a reading of my Systematic Theology beginning on page 28 may be in order.

At 1:15 terminology in the early church and confusions are dealt with. From my 68 Theses Against Jnorm’s Eastern Orthodox Theology Proper

“59. David and I already spoke about this issue of the way person was understood in the early Church:

Drake: “I would be most interested in how you understand personhood.”

David: “I have relied on Boethius’ definition.”

Drake: “Could you refer me to a book, article, or something on Boethius’definition?”

David: “You asked and you shall receive:

“Wherefore if person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every substance is a nature, and exists not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of person: ‘The individual substance of a rational nature.'” (Contra Eutychen, III – from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius – The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 – translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.)==”

Drake: “The substance of a rational nature, yeah I read that in Aquinas and in AA Hodge when I was studying for my Christology paper. Do you see any difference between that and consciousness? If so, what?”

David: “Consciousness for sure, but more (IMHO), in that Boethius (as do most Eastern/Greek fathers), makes a clear distinction between οὺσία and ὑπόστασις, with οὺσία corresponding to what we would term being/essence/nature, and ὑπόστασις with person/individual. ”

Drake: “Agree 100%. It’s just that when I read McGukin on Christological Controversies he said that Cyril refused to equate personhood with consciousness.

Also, if personhood is seated in consciousness would this not draw you away from the Pelagian idea of arbitrary action and arbitrary nature, putting personhood in being and ergo putting God in being demanding a denial of essence and energy?”

After this David ceases response. I think I understood where you were coming from, but as we can see, my definition of person is quite ancient and as I have already established from Davis [Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, page 91;, Athanasius still had no established definition even at the end of his ministry for he confused being and hypostasis until the end. [THIS IS CRUCIAL TO REMEMBER!] So you are left empty-handed with the idea that my definition of person is a mistaken reading into the Nicene Creed from its established definition of person because there is no established definition.”


Moreover, our view of generic unity is exactly what the Nicene Fathers taught:

At 1:19 the logical sequence issue was brought up; Excellent dialogue there.

At 1:24 creation ex nihilo was brought up. Great quotation from Hebrews 11!

Great job guys! Please consider my recent article on EG:

I will deliver an article on the Holy Spirit shortly.

Khallid Muhammad’s Assassination? Saturday, Nov 24 2012 

See 13:30-14:40

Could that be why he was killed?

The Land of Canaan; A Promised Land for the Jews Today? Saturday, Nov 24 2012 

Samuel Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, page 60,

“7. In the former, Canaan was promised, in this, Heaven. Ans. Canaan is promised only but sacramentally, and that was a pœdagogicall promise for the infancie of that Church, but a type which was then in that Covenant, and is not now, make not two Covenants, one then, and another now? Except ye say, there was then a Lamb in the Passeover, which was a Type of Christ to come, and there is now no such Type, because the body is come, and Christ the true High Priest offered himself. Therefore there are two Christs, one then to come, another now who hath come already. The Lords dispensation with Israel is often called a Covenant, now it must either be a Covenant of Works, or of Grace, or a third Covenant.”[1]

John Calvin, Commentary on Ephesians 6:3

And that thou mayest live long on the earth. Moses expressly mentions the land of Canaan,

“that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Exodus 20:12.)

Beyond this the Jews could not conceive of any life more happy or desirable. But as the same divine blessing is extended to the whole world, Paul has properly left out the mention of a place, the peculiar distinction of which lasted only till the coming of Christ.”[2]

I have provided a sermon, “Drake’slandpromise.wma” [forgive the section on saving faith-I had not yet read Clark], that can be accessed at the bottom of the Covenant Theology page at  The King’s Parlor.[3]  I have also explained this issue in detail in my Tables of Human Hearts, treatise, “I. Thirty Two Theses in Defense of the Moral Law, XVII”.[4] The conclusion is that the modern day ethnic Jews have NO divine promise, bequeathing to them, at least in principle, the Land of Canaan, which is modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and the western parts of Jordan and Syria. That promise was dissolved into the broadening of the New Covenant with the ministry of Christ.

Orthodox Jews also agree that the Zionist movement is un-biblical and agree that according to prophecy, their sins have dispersed them around the world with no national sovereignty. That is the correct position.

The Curse of Women’s Rights and Universal Suffrage Friday, Nov 23 2012 


            As most of my readers are aware, I am intensely interested, to the point of obsession, with the Doctrine of God (DG). It is then only fitting that I begin this treatise by connecting the DG with the social issues of equality and suffrage by showing how they all relate. As I have proved exhaustively in my Nicene Triadology works[1], the realities of supremacy, subordination, distinction, division of labor, specialization, and even private property exist within the divine persons themselves in eternity. Thus, these principles are by definition good, for they reflect the nature of God himself. To deny them is to incriminate the person of God (The Father).


As the statement of faith reads from the website of my proposed, The Protestant Christian Church of Louisville,

“There are three eternal minds and wills (a generic unity, not a numeric [with reference to Cardinal numbers] unity) that comprise the Christian Godhead. Speaking in the concrete, the Father is the One God [1-Here we have the Father’s supremacy and Monarchy affirmed.-DS]. Speaking in the abstract, the other two persons are God in the sense that all three persons have the same generic TYPE of nature. [2] The essence of the divine persons is their propositional ideas [3]. These distinct ideas, ad intra, are the foundation for ontological distinctions within God, ad intra – not a thinking temporal and by temporal sequence as men do, but rather eternally with only logical sequence [Thus the value of distinction is affirmed.-DS]. Within this knowledge is a distinction between the manner of God’s knowledge and object of God’s knowledge (not essence and energy). Thus men participate in the object of God’s knowledge not the manner as to become God in essence. [4] This provides an uncreated logos within the created order for there to be univocal knowledge of God and an ontological connection between divine and human in Christ. Having said that, nature directs will and action through rational deliberation; thus, Calvinism. [5-Thus the Luciferian doctrine so fundamental to the French Revolution’s Universal Equality, “Do as thou wilt”, is denied and is replaced with, “Do as divine nature directs”.-DS] Having said that, within each divine person is an ad intra ontological distinction between nature and will. The creation springs directly from divine will, not nature; thus, creation is not consubstantial with God. The Eternal Generation of the Son springs directly from the divine nature of the Father; thus, Christ is consubstantial with God and is a divine person. The personal property of the Father is causality [Thus private property is affirmed.-DS]. The Son is eternally generated ontologically from the Father alone. This is a singular generation, not an infinite emanation (thus, there is no hierarchy of being on which to base Pseudo Dionysian principles of ecclesiology or pagan views of Anchorism in ethics and redemption). The Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father alone (precisely because causality is a property of the Father alone not a divine attribute). [6]

In summary, there is ONE God the Father and two other divine persons come out (a logical sequence not a chronological sequence) of the Father eternally. The other two persons are inferior to the Father at the level hypostasis but not at the level of nature [Thus supremacy and subordination.-DS]. At the level of nature, they are consubstantial (generically, not numerically). The Son eternally generates from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone with reference to the ontological Trinity. With reference to the creation and the economy of salvation, the Holy Spirit is sent by and through the Son.


[1] JOHN 5:44, JOHN 17:3 , 1COR 8:6, EPH 4:6

[2] JOHN 1:1-4, 14, 18, ACTS 5:3-4

[3] PROV 23:7

[4] 2 PET 1:4; THE ANSWER, PG. 20

[5] LUKE 6:43-44

[6] JOHN 15:26”

The Neoplatonic doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS) denies all these principles. ADS conflates nature and person-attribute and property, in favor of a universal equality among the divine persons; thus denying private property, division of labor and specialization. ADS rejects the idea of the Father’s supremacy and monarchy and instead affirms that the Son is auto-theos and not dependent on and subordinate to the Father; thus a kind of liberation theology.

Thus it is my strong affirmation and conclusion that this issue is simply another application of my fundamental accusation that the doctrine which we know of as Absolute Divine Simplicity, the monad of Plotinus, which in itself is full of contradictions and inconsistencies which only those with a keen eye can detect, is none other than that great dragon, the serpent who deceived Eve, the Father of lies and author of confusion: Satan. He is that angel of light who was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth. It is then no surprise that the peoples who have embraced these ideas the fullest, the Romanists and the Communists, have shed more blood than any in the history of the world. Yet we are not ignorant of his devices and let us then move forward in exposing him.

Is Satan the One God? Thursday, Nov 22 2012 

On our Latin and Sabellian opponent’s logic, if the word theos is used in any way of a person, then that person must be a member of the Godhead, whatever the words, member and Godhead may mean. I’m curious: When Paul says of Satan,

2 Cor 4:4  In whom the god (theos) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them

is he saying that Satan is the one God? In a recent post I did,, Samuel Clarke stated of Romans 9:5,

“the sense is not difficult. For, as the same Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. xv, 27, that when he saith, All things are put under Christ, tis manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under him: so here in like manner, when he repeats the very same thing, that Christ is God over all; and ch. X, 12, that he is Lord over all; and Acts x, 36, he is Lord of all; tis manifest again, that He must needs be expected, by Communication of whose Divine Power and Supreme Authority, Christ is God or Lord over all.”

The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, page 88

With reference to John 20:28, I found David Waltz’ The Trinity: a ‘clear’ Biblical teaching, or a post-Biblical development? very helpful, commenting on DECEMBER 27, 2010 12:43-44 PM,

“Now with this brief background in mind, I shall propose three interpretive options for John 20:28:

1. When Thomas exclaimed: My Lord and my God!”, he was affirming that the risen Jesus Christ was promised eschatological king; the appointed visible representative of “the one true God”, who is invisible, and whom “no man has seen”.

In this passage, John 20:28, Thomas is not saying that Jesus is the One God. He is using the term God, not to affirm his independence and absoluteness, as if a second Father, but with reference to his authority now as the risen priest king and icon of God, the representative of God on earth who has de jure authority over all men, just like Paul uses the term Theos of Satan, when he affirms Satan’s de facto authority over all men.

Revelation 3 and Colossians 1; Strong for Eternal Generation Wednesday, Nov 21 2012 

Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning [archē] of the creation of God, says this:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation [πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως]. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 

Col 1: 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning [archē]

Samuel Clark says,

“The First-begotten, brought into the World by the Father before all ages, (for by Him did He make the Ages, Heb. i, 2;) before the whole Creation, (for by him did he create all things, Eph. iii, 9, and Col. i, 16.)

It is observable that St. Paul does not here call our Saviour, …the first created of all Creatures, but…the first-born of every creature, the first-begotten before all creatures; signifying that he was (before the Creation of Things,) …produced by, derived  from the Father…” The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, page 182.

Objection: This Doctrine was the invention of Origen and a product of his Neoplatonism!

Answer: On the contrary:

Justin Martyr, The Second Apology of St. Justin Martyr, Chapter 6

“And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him”.

and again, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 62

“But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God”.

And again, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 100,

“For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: ‘All things are delivered unto me by My Father.’ and, ‘No man knows the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.’ Matthew 11:27Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of theScriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures”.

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter 10

“God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle [ἁρκή], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him.”

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 19. 2

“Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father”.

Here we have in the first 2 centuries of Christianity, Holy Fathers, declaring that the Son was begotten of the Father before the creation, and thus not a creature but deriving his existence from the Father before all worlds. A dependency on the Father is therefore a denial of auto-theos and presents a strong testimony, both in the Scriptures and in the Early Church for eternal generation. I would also like to point out that Col. 1 and Rev. 3’s contexts do not concern Christ’s Resurrection, as if this generation pertained to the economia. This generation pertains to ontological constitution.

Moreover, as brother Mark Xu points out,

“from Bishop Bull’s Defencio Fidei Nicaenae,

“personam sine essentia concipi non posse, nisi statueris personam in divinis nihil aliud esse quam merum tropon hyarxews quod plane sabellianum.” George Bull Defencio Fidei Nicaenae Lib 4 iv.

It is impossible to consider person without essence, unless you make person in divine matters nothing but a mere mode of subsistence (tropon hyarxews), which is plane Sabellienism.

I transliterated the greek word…

P.S. Drake, that quote appears in English translation on, Vol. 2 Page 565 lower right corner. Chapter 4 on the subordination is devastating to the autotheos followers.”

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: