The Necessity of the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in Redemption

[Rella]

The Son as God according to essence is authoeos; he is God of himself. However, the Son according to his person is begotten from the Father in a processional relation (Filiation/Sonship). The Spirit of God according to his essence is autotheos; God of himself. His Aseity is not dependent on another. The Spirit of God according to his according to his person is from the Father and the Son in an ordered processional taxis. So, whether we're thinking of the Son or the Spirit we're simply saying something along these lines, that with reference to essence the Son and Spirit is God of himself; and with reference to person; Son from Father & Spirit from Father and Son. Another way to try to clarify this, is that the processional relations of distinction in the Godhead; Eternal Filiation: Father & Son; Eternal Spiration: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that those processional relations of distinctions occur within the irreducible Triune Being of God.

The essence is not tripersonalized in the processions, rather the processions occur within a tripersonalized essence, common to all. Another way of putting this, initially the essence does not process along with the persons; persons process in generation & spiration the essence does not process along with those relations of persons (proper distinction). Rather, the essence simple is the three persons and the three simple are the divine essence. We must remember to distinguish and maintain what is common (essence) to each person, and what is proper to each person in the processions. We also must possess a solid understanding in distinguishing between, what is common (essence) and proper (persons/distinctions) in our grammar of trinitarian orthodoxy.

The Son is Authotheos; God of himself. So, we deny that the Son possesses Aseity from the Father. Because that would violate what is common to each person. So, the Son is God of himself as such he has Aseity from himself. By its very definition what is (A SE)(of and by Himself) cannot be communicated from another because it entails the coordinate notion of independence from another. What is (A SE)(of and by Himself) is independent; what is independent is A SE.

An interesting read on this subject.

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1​

• 
  
  Dr. Dilday
• Oct 20, 2020
• 5 min read

It is to be observed in addition, that this Generation of the Son does not prevent Him, with the Spirit, from being called Αὐτοθεὸς/Autotheos, God of Himself, indeed rather, it implies it; in the sense that our AUTHOR here explained, α. of Truth, namely, β. of Eminence, and, γ. of Essential and External Independence.


α. The Truth of the Deity of the Son, by which, not only qualitatively and analogically, but φύσει, by nature, He is and is called Θεὸς/God, such that for Him to be is to be God, is taught by the Spirit in 1 John 5:20, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, this is the true God, and eternal life. These words are to be referred, not to God the Father, but to the Son: for, 1. the pronoun οὗτος, this one, has regard to Christ, of whom it was spoken just beforehand. 2. The scope of the Apostle evinces this, which is to teach that Christ came to conduct us to the knowledge and communion of the True God, and that we are therefore in that True One, in this manner, that we are in His Son Jesus Christ; seeing that the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, is also the True God and eternal Life. 3. Life and eternal Life in the writings of John is a title wont to be given, not to the Father, but to the Son, John 1:4; 11:25; 1 John 1:2; 5:11, 12: compare the vindication of this text from Socinian παρερμηνείᾳ/misinterpretation, Catecheseos Racovianæ, chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 26, pages 60, 63-65, by ARNOLDI in his refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLII-CLX, pages 227-230; and the defense of the same text against Goslawski[1] and Socinus by BECMANN,[2] Exercitationibus Theologicis, X, pages 140-146; certainly add HERMAN VENEMA, Exercise III de Vera Christi Divinitate, pages 117-145.

Campegius Vitringa the Younger

β. His Eminence, Romans 9:5, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν, who is over all, God blessed for ever: Amen. These words, 1. are not able to be considered a δοξολογικῇ/ doxological apostrophe to the Father, because the subject matter does not demand this, nor does the order of words admit this; while the article with the participle, ὁ ὢν, who being, is relative, not beginning a new sentence, but continuing the same. 2. And so these words ought altogether to be referred, not to the Father, but to the Son, who was treated in the preceding words, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: see ARNOLDI’S refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, page 295, § III, ad Catechesem Racovianam de Cognitione Personæ Christi, chapter I, questions 66, 67, pages 100, 101; CHRISTIAN BECMANN’S Exercitationes Theologicas, IX, pages 132-138; HERMAN VENEMA’S Exercise III, just now commened, de Vera Christi Divinitate, page 141 in the notes; and especially his Disputationem Criticam primam contra Artemonium[3] ad Romans 9:5, found after VITRINGA the Younger’s[4] Opuscula in octavo, pages 285-314, in which he admirably vindicates the true reading of this passage; and among other things he observes in § 24, pages 312, 313, “The words, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, as concerning the flesh, which, endowed with restrictive force, intimate something more sublime in Christ, demand the following words for their complement and explanation; and so they indicate that the speech continues concerning the same person. For, since he says that Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, was he able to add anything more aptly than a reason for the restriction, and so to subjoin a description of His more sublime nature? Especially since the mentioning of the excellency of Christ is able exceedingly to magnify those prerogatives, and the Sacred Writers are wont everywhere thus to teach, mentioning flesh and Spirit with respect to Christ, as in Romans 1:3, 4; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Timothy 3:16.”

In Titus 2:13,[5] where, not the Father, but the Son, goes by the title of the μεγάλου Θεοῦ, great God; for, 1. μέγας Θεὸς, great God, and σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, our Savior Jesus Christ, are subjoined to one article, τοῦ, before μεγάλου, which much rather leads us to one Person than to two distinct Persons in these words; and so the καὶ/and between Θεὸν/God and σωτῆρα/Savior does not disjoin here, but rather connects. 2. Ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is wont to be attributed, not to the Father, but to the Son; and, 3. He, whose ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is expected, is said to have given Himself for us, verse 14: compare against the Socinian στρέβλωσιν/torturing of this text, presented in the Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 29, pages 60, 66, 67, ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLXV-CCLXX, pages 232-234. The vindications of the three passages just now adduced ro the True and Supreme Deity of Christ, namely, 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13, against Harwood,[6] read also in CAROLUS BOERS’[7] Specimine Animadversionum in Harwood nuperam Novi Testamenti Versionem Britannicam, chapter II, sections 1-3, pages 37-72.

And the substance itself also declares that, if the Son is True God, He ought also to be the Most High God: for the True God acknowledges acknowledges no one as superior to Himself.

γ. In like manner it is certain that, if the Son is True God, He is the Independent God: for among the Attributes of God Independence is easily the first, and inseparable from God’s Essence: hence also He is said ἔχειν, to have, Essence or ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, life in Himself, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, as also the Father does, John 5:26, concerning which passage see at greater length § 8.


Since these things are so, the title Αὐτοθεὸς or αὐτόθεος (for Theologians place the accent diversely) is not able to be denied to the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit, as if that title were applicable to the Father alone.

[1] Adam Goslawski (1577-1642) was a Polish Socinian. He wrote Disputationem de persona. [2] Christian Becmann (1580-1648) was a German Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Zerbst (1627-1648). [3] Johannes Crellius (1590-1633) was a one of the Polish Brethren and an influential Socinian theologian. His son and grandson were also proponents of Socinian views. [4] Campegius Vitringa the Younger (1693-1723) was a Dutch Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1715-1723). [5] Titus 2:13: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)…” [6] Edward Harwood (1729-1794) was an English classical scholar and Biblical critic. His views tended toward Socinianism. [7] Carolus Boer (1746-1814) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1779-1795, 1802-1814).

 

[Ladodgers6]

An interesting read on this subject.

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1​

• 
  
  Dr. Dilday
• Oct 20, 2020
• 5 min read

It is to be observed in addition, that this Generation of the Son does not prevent Him, with the Spirit, from being called Αὐτοθεὸς/Autotheos, God of Himself, indeed rather, it implies it; in the sense that our AUTHOR here explained, α. of Truth, namely, β. of Eminence, and, γ. of Essential and External Independence.


α. The Truth of the Deity of the Son, by which, not only qualitatively and analogically, but φύσει, by nature, He is and is called Θεὸς/God, such that for Him to be is to be God, is taught by the Spirit in 1 John 5:20, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, this is the true God, and eternal life. These words are to be referred, not to God the Father, but to the Son: for, 1. the pronoun οὗτος, this one, has regard to Christ, of whom it was spoken just beforehand. 2. The scope of the Apostle evinces this, which is to teach that Christ came to conduct us to the knowledge and communion of the True God, and that we are therefore in that True One, in this manner, that we are in His Son Jesus Christ; seeing that the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, is also the True God and eternal Life. 3. Life and eternal Life in the writings of John is a title wont to be given, not to the Father, but to the Son, John 1:4; 11:25; 1 John 1:2; 5:11, 12: compare the vindication of this text from Socinian παρερμηνείᾳ/misinterpretation, Catecheseos Racovianæ, chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 26, pages 60, 63-65, by ARNOLDI in his refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLII-CLX, pages 227-230; and the defense of the same text against Goslawski[1] and Socinus by BECMANN,[2] Exercitationibus Theologicis, X, pages 140-146; certainly add HERMAN VENEMA, Exercise III de Vera Christi Divinitate, pages 117-145.

Campegius Vitringa the Younger

β. His Eminence, Romans 9:5, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν, who is over all, God blessed for ever: Amen. These words, 1. are not able to be considered a δοξολογικῇ/ doxological apostrophe to the Father, because the subject matter does not demand this, nor does the order of words admit this; while the article with the participle, ὁ ὢν, who being, is relative, not beginning a new sentence, but continuing the same. 2. And so these words ought altogether to be referred, not to the Father, but to the Son, who was treated in the preceding words, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: see ARNOLDI’S refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, page 295, § III, ad Catechesem Racovianam de Cognitione Personæ Christi, chapter I, questions 66, 67, pages 100, 101; CHRISTIAN BECMANN’S Exercitationes Theologicas, IX, pages 132-138; HERMAN VENEMA’S Exercise III, just now commened, de Vera Christi Divinitate, page 141 in the notes; and especially his Disputationem Criticam primam contra Artemonium[3] ad Romans 9:5, found after VITRINGA the Younger’s[4] Opuscula in octavo, pages 285-314, in which he admirably vindicates the true reading of this passage; and among other things he observes in § 24, pages 312, 313, “The words, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, as concerning the flesh, which, endowed with restrictive force, intimate something more sublime in Christ, demand the following words for their complement and explanation; and so they indicate that the speech continues concerning the same person. For, since he says that Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, was he able to add anything more aptly than a reason for the restriction, and so to subjoin a description of His more sublime nature? Especially since the mentioning of the excellency of Christ is able exceedingly to magnify those prerogatives, and the Sacred Writers are wont everywhere thus to teach, mentioning flesh and Spirit with respect to Christ, as in Romans 1:3, 4; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Timothy 3:16.”

In Titus 2:13,[5] where, not the Father, but the Son, goes by the title of the μεγάλου Θεοῦ, great God; for, 1. μέγας Θεὸς, great God, and σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, our Savior Jesus Christ, are subjoined to one article, τοῦ, before μεγάλου, which much rather leads us to one Person than to two distinct Persons in these words; and so the καὶ/and between Θεὸν/God and σωτῆρα/Savior does not disjoin here, but rather connects. 2. Ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is wont to be attributed, not to the Father, but to the Son; and, 3. He, whose ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is expected, is said to have given Himself for us, verse 14: compare against the Socinian στρέβλωσιν/torturing of this text, presented in the Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 29, pages 60, 66, 67, ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLXV-CCLXX, pages 232-234. The vindications of the three passages just now adduced ro the True and Supreme Deity of Christ, namely, 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13, against Harwood,[6] read also in CAROLUS BOERS’[7] Specimine Animadversionum in Harwood nuperam Novi Testamenti Versionem Britannicam, chapter II, sections 1-3, pages 37-72.

And the substance itself also declares that, if the Son is True God, He ought also to be the Most High God: for the True God acknowledges acknowledges no one as superior to Himself.

γ. In like manner it is certain that, if the Son is True God, He is the Independent God: for among the Attributes of God Independence is easily the first, and inseparable from God’s Essence: hence also He is said ἔχειν, to have, Essence or ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, life in Himself, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, as also the Father does, John 5:26, concerning which passage see at greater length § 8.


Since these things are so, the title Αὐτοθεὸς or αὐτόθεος (for Theologians place the accent diversely) is not able to be denied to the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit, as if that title were applicable to the Father alone.

[1] Adam Goslawski (1577-1642) was a Polish Socinian. He wrote Disputationem de persona. [2] Christian Becmann (1580-1648) was a German Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Zerbst (1627-1648). [3] Johannes Crellius (1590-1633) was a one of the Polish Brethren and an influential Socinian theologian. His son and grandson were also proponents of Socinian views. [4] Campegius Vitringa the Younger (1693-1723) was a Dutch Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1715-1723). [5] Titus 2:13: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)…” [6] Edward Harwood (1729-1794) was an English classical scholar and Biblical critic. His views tended toward Socinianism. [7] Carolus Boer (1746-1814) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1779-1795, 1802-1814).

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”

The greek word there is not masculine its neuter which means Jesus was not saying I and the Father are the same person. He was saying I and the Father are the same thing; we're one in nature, one in essence.

 

[Ladodgers6]

An interesting read on this subject.

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1

De Moor V:10: The Son as Autotheos, Part 1​

• 
  
  Dr. Dilday
• Oct 20, 2020
• 5 min read

It is to be observed in addition, that this Generation of the Son does not prevent Him, with the Spirit, from being called Αὐτοθεὸς/Autotheos, God of Himself, indeed rather, it implies it; in the sense that our AUTHOR here explained, α. of Truth, namely, β. of Eminence, and, γ. of Essential and External Independence.


α. The Truth of the Deity of the Son, by which, not only qualitatively and analogically, but φύσει, by nature, He is and is called Θεὸς/God, such that for Him to be is to be God, is taught by the Spirit in 1 John 5:20, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεός, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, this is the true God, and eternal life. These words are to be referred, not to God the Father, but to the Son: for, 1. the pronoun οὗτος, this one, has regard to Christ, of whom it was spoken just beforehand. 2. The scope of the Apostle evinces this, which is to teach that Christ came to conduct us to the knowledge and communion of the True God, and that we are therefore in that True One, in this manner, that we are in His Son Jesus Christ; seeing that the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, is also the True God and eternal Life. 3. Life and eternal Life in the writings of John is a title wont to be given, not to the Father, but to the Son, John 1:4; 11:25; 1 John 1:2; 5:11, 12: compare the vindication of this text from Socinian παρερμηνείᾳ/misinterpretation, Catecheseos Racovianæ, chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 26, pages 60, 63-65, by ARNOLDI in his refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLII-CLX, pages 227-230; and the defense of the same text against Goslawski[1] and Socinus by BECMANN,[2] Exercitationibus Theologicis, X, pages 140-146; certainly add HERMAN VENEMA, Exercise III de Vera Christi Divinitate, pages 117-145.

Campegius Vitringa the Younger

β. His Eminence, Romans 9:5, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν, who is over all, God blessed for ever: Amen. These words, 1. are not able to be considered a δοξολογικῇ/ doxological apostrophe to the Father, because the subject matter does not demand this, nor does the order of words admit this; while the article with the participle, ὁ ὢν, who being, is relative, not beginning a new sentence, but continuing the same. 2. And so these words ought altogether to be referred, not to the Father, but to the Son, who was treated in the preceding words, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: see ARNOLDI’S refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, page 295, § III, ad Catechesem Racovianam de Cognitione Personæ Christi, chapter I, questions 66, 67, pages 100, 101; CHRISTIAN BECMANN’S Exercitationes Theologicas, IX, pages 132-138; HERMAN VENEMA’S Exercise III, just now commened, de Vera Christi Divinitate, page 141 in the notes; and especially his Disputationem Criticam primam contra Artemonium[3] ad Romans 9:5, found after VITRINGA the Younger’s[4] Opuscula in octavo, pages 285-314, in which he admirably vindicates the true reading of this passage; and among other things he observes in § 24, pages 312, 313, “The words, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, as concerning the flesh, which, endowed with restrictive force, intimate something more sublime in Christ, demand the following words for their complement and explanation; and so they indicate that the speech continues concerning the same person. For, since he says that Christ is of the Jews according to the flesh, was he able to add anything more aptly than a reason for the restriction, and so to subjoin a description of His more sublime nature? Especially since the mentioning of the excellency of Christ is able exceedingly to magnify those prerogatives, and the Sacred Writers are wont everywhere thus to teach, mentioning flesh and Spirit with respect to Christ, as in Romans 1:3, 4; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Timothy 3:16.”

In Titus 2:13,[5] where, not the Father, but the Son, goes by the title of the μεγάλου Θεοῦ, great God; for, 1. μέγας Θεὸς, great God, and σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, our Savior Jesus Christ, are subjoined to one article, τοῦ, before μεγάλου, which much rather leads us to one Person than to two distinct Persons in these words; and so the καὶ/and between Θεὸν/God and σωτῆρα/Savior does not disjoin here, but rather connects. 2. Ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is wont to be attributed, not to the Father, but to the Son; and, 3. He, whose ἐπιφάνεια/appearing is expected, is said to have given Himself for us, verse 14: compare against the Socinian στρέβλωσιν/torturing of this text, presented in the Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 29, pages 60, 66, 67, ARNOLDI’S Refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the places cited, § CLXV-CCLXX, pages 232-234. The vindications of the three passages just now adduced ro the True and Supreme Deity of Christ, namely, 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13, against Harwood,[6] read also in CAROLUS BOERS’[7] Specimine Animadversionum in Harwood nuperam Novi Testamenti Versionem Britannicam, chapter II, sections 1-3, pages 37-72.

And the substance itself also declares that, if the Son is True God, He ought also to be the Most High God: for the True God acknowledges acknowledges no one as superior to Himself.

γ. In like manner it is certain that, if the Son is True God, He is the Independent God: for among the Attributes of God Independence is easily the first, and inseparable from God’s Essence: hence also He is said ἔχειν, to have, Essence or ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, life in Himself, ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ, as also the Father does, John 5:26, concerning which passage see at greater length § 8.


Since these things are so, the title Αὐτοθεὸς or αὐτόθεος (for Theologians place the accent diversely) is not able to be denied to the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit, as if that title were applicable to the Father alone.

[1] Adam Goslawski (1577-1642) was a Polish Socinian. He wrote Disputationem de persona. [2] Christian Becmann (1580-1648) was a German Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Zerbst (1627-1648). [3] Johannes Crellius (1590-1633) was a one of the Polish Brethren and an influential Socinian theologian. His son and grandson were also proponents of Socinian views. [4] Campegius Vitringa the Younger (1693-1723) was a Dutch Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Franeker (1715-1723). [5] Titus 2:13: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)…” [6] Edward Harwood (1729-1794) was an English classical scholar and Biblical critic. His views tended toward Socinianism. [7] Carolus Boer (1746-1814) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, serving as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1779-1795, 1802-1814).

The Son is neither from the Father according to his essence, nor Autotheos according to his person.

 

[Rella]

The Son is neither from the Father according to his essence, nor Autotheos according to his person.

Okay... then I assume your beliefs lie with the following, IF you are a Trinity believer?

Both of these , above and here, were posted elsewhere under the title

Autotheos, Homoousios, and the Aseity of the Son!​

What does "homoousios" mean? fro Bible Hub

Definition and Historical Background

“Homoousios” (ὁμοούσιος in Greek) is a theological term that literally means “of the same essence” or “of the same substance.” It emerged as a pivotal term during the early Christian centuries, especially in the debates of the 4th century AD over the nature of Christ’s divinity. Although not itself a biblical word, the concept it expresses draws from unique scriptural truths regarding the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the early church, disputes erupted concerning whether Jesus, the Son of God, was fully God in the same sense as the Father (thus, “homoousios”) or if He was a created being somehow “less” or “subordinate” in essence. This controversy came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, culminating in the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is homoousios with the Father-co-eternal and fully divine.

Etymology and Theological Significance

The Greek word ὁμοούσιος is a compound of ὁμο- (homo-, meaning “same”) and οὐσία (ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance”). The Nicene Creed’s use of “homoousios” settled the church’s official stance that the Son shares precisely the same divine being as the Father, rather than a merely similar or derived nature.

This affirmation guards the full deity of Christ. It ensures that believers understand Jesus’ role in salvation and in creation (John 1:1-3) as fully God rather than a lesser, created deity. The term helps maintain the critical theological position: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Thus, “homoousios” underscores that Christ is indeed God from all eternity.

Scriptural Basis for Homoousios

While the word itself does not appear in Scripture, the idea that the Son is fully God is rooted in passages such as:

• John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” The Word (Jesus) is not merely close to God’s nature, but is God.

• John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” This statement by Jesus implies unity of essence.

• Colossians 1:15-17: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… all things have been created through Him and for Him.” This ascribes to Christ the role of Creator, emphasizing His eternal power and divine status.

• Hebrews 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.” The language of “exact representation” strongly echoes the concept of “homoousios,” showing that the Son shares in the very essence of the Father.

Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy

The early 4th century saw a significant theological dispute led by Arius, who taught that the Son was a created being and therefore not co-eternal with the Father. In response, bishops across the Christian world convened at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). Under the guidance of church fathers such as Athanasius, the council produced a creed proclaiming the Son to be begotten, not made, and explicitly using the term homoousios to affirm that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.

The Nicene Creed’s specific wording countered Arianism and formed the foundation of orthodox Christian teaching on the Trinity. It asserted that the one God exists eternally as three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-each of whom share the same divine essence.

Relationship to the Doctrine of the Trinity

The significance of “homoousios” extends to the full doctrine of the Trinity. As the Nicene Creed and subsequent councils (such as the Council of Constantinople in AD 381) clarify:

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

All three Persons co-equally and co-eternally share the one divine Being. Consequently, each Person is fully God, yet they are distinct Persons. This core teaching remains vital to understanding the biblical statements about God’s nature, particularly in passages such as “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

Defending the Term Biblically and Historically

Proponents of the Nicene definition drew from a broad base of sources:

• Early Manuscript Evidence: New Testament manuscripts-such as early papyri (e.g., P66, P75) and key codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus)-preserve the language affirming Christ’s deity (e.g., John 1:1-14). Careful study of these manuscripts demonstrates the consistency of the biblical text, supporting the theological conclusion that Jesus is indeed God.

• Church Fathers and Councils: Early Christian apologists (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) opposed heretical views and contributed to the theological clarity that would culminate in the Nicene Creed.

• Archaeological and Historical Records: Contemporary studies of early Christian gatherings and inscriptions corroborate the importance placed on Christ’s deity. Certain artifacts, inscriptions, and documented early Christian worship practices confirm that believers worshiped Jesus as fully God from the outset.

Pastoral and Practical Implications

The term “homoousios” is not merely a dusty theological proposition but has profound implications for Christian worship and personal faith. Because the Son is truly God, His sacrifice has infinite worth-able to fully atone for human sins. As 1 Peter 1:18-19 reminds, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed… but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.”

Moreover, believers’ confidence in prayer stems from approaching One who is truly God. The living Christ is powerful to save (Romans 5:6-11), and the Holy Spirit, also homoousios with the Father and the Son, indwells believers, guiding them into all truth (John 16:13). The triune God is therefore intimately involved in the life of every believer-rooted in the abiding divine essence shared among Father, Son, and Spirit.

Conclusion

“Homoousios” is a cornerstone term in Christian theology, confirming that Jesus Christ shares the very essence or substance of God the Father. Though the expression does not appear in the biblical text directly, the New Testament affirms the truth it conveys: the Son is co-eternal, co-equal, and consubstantial with the Father, and the Holy Spirit likewise shares fully in this divine Being.

This teaching remains foundational for understanding salvation, worship, and the believers’ relationship with the triune God. Its importance lies in guarding the integrity of the gospel: if Jesus is not fully God, His sacrifice could not be sufficient for the salvation of humanity. The doctrine of “homoousios” assures the church and every believer that Christ, the promised Messiah, is not a lesser being, but truly “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

 

[Ladodgers6]

Okay... then I assume your beliefs lie with the following, IF you are a Trinity believer?

Both of these , above and here, were posted elsewhere under the title

Autotheos, Homoousios, and the Aseity of the Son!​

What does "homoousios" mean? fro Bible Hub

Definition and Historical Background

“Homoousios” (ὁμοούσιος in Greek) is a theological term that literally means “of the same essence” or “of the same substance.” It emerged as a pivotal term during the early Christian centuries, especially in the debates of the 4th century AD over the nature of Christ’s divinity. Although not itself a biblical word, the concept it expresses draws from unique scriptural truths regarding the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the early church, disputes erupted concerning whether Jesus, the Son of God, was fully God in the same sense as the Father (thus, “homoousios”) or if He was a created being somehow “less” or “subordinate” in essence. This controversy came to a head at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, culminating in the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is homoousios with the Father-co-eternal and fully divine.

Precisely why the Son is neither from the Father according to His essence. His essence is timeless, eternal, simplistic, ontological. He is neither created or dependent on another according to essence. He is Autotheos; God of himself.

Nor is he Autotheos according to personhood. If, so, then his divine essence is generated; he's a lesser god, inferior, which leads to heresies subordinationism & hierarchy.​

Etymology and Theological Significance

The Greek word ὁμοούσιος is a compound of ὁμο- (homo-, meaning “same”) and οὐσία (ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance”). The Nicene Creed’s use of “homoousios” settled the church’s official stance that the Son shares precisely the same divine being as the Father, rather than a merely similar or derived nature.

This affirmation guards the full deity of Christ. It ensures that believers understand Jesus’ role in salvation and in creation (John 1:1-3) as fully God rather than a lesser, created deity. The term helps maintain the critical theological position: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Thus, “homoousios” underscores that Christ is indeed God from all eternity.

Amen!

Scriptural Basis for Homoousios

While the word itself does not appear in Scripture, the idea that the Son is fully God is rooted in passages such as:

• John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” The Word (Jesus) is not merely close to God’s nature, but is God.

• John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” This statement by Jesus implies unity of essence.

• Colossians 1:15-17: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… all things have been created through Him and for Him.” This ascribes to Christ the role of Creator, emphasizing His eternal power and divine status.

• Hebrews 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.” The language of “exact representation” strongly echoes the concept of “homoousios,” showing that the Son shares in the very essence of the Father.

Amen!!

Council of Nicaea and the Arian Controversy

The early 4th century saw a significant theological dispute led by Arius, who taught that the Son was a created being and therefore not co-eternal with the Father. In response, bishops across the Christian world convened at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325). Under the guidance of church fathers such as Athanasius, the council produced a creed proclaiming the Son to be begotten, not made, and explicitly using the term homoousios to affirm that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.

The Nicene Creed’s specific wording countered Arianism and formed the foundation of orthodox Christian teaching on the Trinity. It asserted that the one God exists eternally as three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-each of whom share the same divine essence.

That is correct the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father​

Relationship to the Doctrine of the Trinity

The significance of “homoousios” extends to the full doctrine of the Trinity. As the Nicene Creed and subsequent councils (such as the Council of Constantinople in AD 381) clarify:

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

All three Persons co-equally and co-eternally share the one divine Being. Consequently, each Person is fully God, yet they are distinct Persons. This core teaching remains vital to understanding the biblical statements about God’s nature, particularly in passages such as “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

Amen again! Also don't forget that Eternal Generation was first coined by Origen of Alexandria (158-256 AD). The nascent church (30-100 AD) (early Christianity) held that the Son shares the same divine essence (homoousios) as the Father, existing eternally and not created. The Son is the exact imprint of God's nature, begotten eternally rather than made in time, which implies he perfectly represents the Father's Divine Identity.​

Defending the Term Biblically and Historically

Proponents of the Nicene definition drew from a broad base of sources:

• Early Manuscript Evidence: New Testament manuscripts-such as early papyri (e.g., P66, P75) and key codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus)-preserve the language affirming Christ’s deity (e.g., John 1:1-14). Careful study of these manuscripts demonstrates the consistency of the biblical text, supporting the theological conclusion that Jesus is indeed God.

• Church Fathers and Councils: Early Christian apologists (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) opposed heretical views and contributed to the theological clarity that would culminate in the Nicene Creed.

• Archaeological and Historical Records: Contemporary studies of early Christian gatherings and inscriptions corroborate the importance placed on Christ’s deity. Certain artifacts, inscriptions, and documented early Christian worship practices confirm that believers worshiped Jesus as fully God from the outset.

Pastoral and Practical Implications

The term “homoousios” is not merely a dusty theological proposition but has profound implications for Christian worship and personal faith. Because the Son is truly God, His sacrifice has infinite worth-able to fully atone for human sins. As 1 Peter 1:18-19 reminds, “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed… but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.”

Moreover, believers’ confidence in prayer stems from approaching One who is truly God. The living Christ is powerful to save (Romans 5:6-11), and the Holy Spirit, also homoousios with the Father and the Son, indwells believers, guiding them into all truth (John 16:13). The triune God is therefore intimately involved in the life of every believer-rooted in the abiding divine essence shared among Father, Son, and Spirit.

Conclusion

“Homoousios” is a cornerstone term in Christian theology, confirming that Jesus Christ shares the very essence or substance of God the Father. Though the expression does not appear in the biblical text directly, the New Testament affirms the truth it conveys: the Son is co-eternal, co-equal, and consubstantial with the Father, and the Holy Spirit likewise shares fully in this divine Being.

This teaching remains foundational for understanding salvation, worship, and the believers’ relationship with the triune God. Its importance lies in guarding the integrity of the gospel: if Jesus is not fully God, His sacrifice could not be sufficient for the salvation of humanity. The doctrine of “homoousios” assures the church and every believer that Christ, the promised Messiah, is not a lesser being, but truly “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).

Amen brother!!! Keep spreading the truth!!!

For Augustine, the working of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is indivisibly the work of the three ad extra (i.e., in creation, providence, and redemption). At the same time, in this single act, the divine persons work in an ordered and irreversible manner according to their relative properties ad intra.
​

3 persons are the Divine Essence, and the Divine Essence are the 3 persons.

 

[JesusFan]

So one is not Justified or redeemed if one doesn't believe in the God/man thing?

If one denies Deity of Jesus, they have a Jesus of spirit of antichrist, and will not be saved

 

[Arial]

If one denies Deity of Jesus, they have a Jesus of spirit of antichrist, and will not be saved

You might be able to say they are not saved but you cannot say they will not be saved.

 

[JesusFan]

You might be able to say they are not saved but you cannot say they will not be saved.

true, meant to state it as long as they are believing in that version of Jesus