Answering Objections to the Incarnation

[apostoli]

The term "begotten" used by itself has a connotation of an origin. The term "only begotten" is one of relationship, not necessarily of an origin.

"monogenes" is used 9 times in the NT. At John 1:14 we encounter "μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός" in reference to Jesus, which most literally means the "only begotten of the Father". John 1:18; 3:16,18 & 1 John 4:9 we encounter "ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός" in reference to Jesus as "the only begotten Son". At Heb 11:17 it is used of Isacc, in regard to him being Abraham's only child born under the promises. At Luke 7:12 & 8:42 we have reference to what could be understood as a "one of a kind", specified as son or daughter, though the inference is that the son or daughter is an only child. At Luke 9:38 "monogenes" is used directly in reference to an only child who is earlier identified as being a son.

"monogenes" in the NT is only ever used of sons or daughters who are the natural offspring of their father/mother and who are the only offspring of the parent/s.

So the relationships depicted of the Son and others is that of "only offspring". Offspring by definition have source and cause.

The statement "begotten of the Father before all worlds" or "eternally begotten of the Father" carries a sense of origin, and is not biblical.

The word "monogenes" in the NT is always used of "natural" offspring. And to be offspring requires origination, begettal via a parent. So Given John 1:1-2, the idea "begotten of the Father before all worlds/ages" is in fact biblical. How the Son was caused by the Father before all ages is not revealed in scripture, but we have indication that it was not in the same manner as temporal things are begotten.

I contend that the "only begotten" was not begotten nor made, but was always the only begotten. Truly eternally the Son of God.

Assuming you acknowledge the real existence of three distinct individuals (three real persons) who are the one God...

If the pre-incarnate Logos is not truely offspring of the Father (does not have origination), then he isn't really son, but "son" in name only. Imo, where your idea ultimately leads is towards a scenario where there were a few brothers, and one took on the role of Father and adopted one of the others as his Son.

If your concern is to defend the co-eternity of the Father, Son and Spirit, then use Athanasius' argument = there is no time in eternity. The Father, Son and Spirit persist in eternity, so obviously they are co-eternal.

If your concern is to defend the doctrine that there are three persons in the one God, then Nicea's homoousia (consubstantiality) is, imo, a safe haven. As many a churchman has taught: the Father in the begettal is the source and cause of the hypostasis (person/subsistence) of the Son, while the Son's ousia (substantia=substance) is inherited = communicated to the Son. In other words, the person of the Son had origination, but not that aspect that makes him homoousia as God with the Father and Spirit. In comparison, we are homoousia with all mankind, but our person has source and cause in our parents (via God's arrangement), while our common ousia is inherited. The big difference is our inherited ousia was created in Adam by God.

No where in holy scripture is the term "begotten" used to refer to Christ's preexistence.

Have a think on 1 John 4:9. Given your denial "No where in holy scripture is the term 'begotten' used to refer to Christ's preexistence" I have to assume you side with the Christadelphians and INC that the texts applies only to the incarnate Christ (?) The church has always understood that this and numerous other texts refers to the sending of the Son from pre-existence (A.John describes the Son as ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (the only begotten Son)). Have a read of Phil 2:2-8...

What is at issue, God is immutable. The Son of God is God. (John 1:3, Genesis 1:1.) Immutability negates change in any way. Yet the Son was changed by being incarnated. This is our discussion.

Was God changed when he became creator? Or for that matter when he started to have dealings with mankind (eg: Adam & Eve, Abraham etc) ?

[apostoli]

God is one in being and three in person. Saying that there is only one God does not mean that there is only one person who is God. This means that there is only one being who is God. Saying that there are three persons who are God does not mean that there are three Gods. It is important to keep in mind the distinction between being and person.

Are you saying that:

1. There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?
or
2. There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

[siliconwafer]

Are you saying that:

1. There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?
or
2. There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

God exists as three persons.

[37818]

Have a think on 1 John 4:9. Given your denial "No where in holy scripture is the term 'begotten' used to refer to Christ's preexistence" I have to assume you side with the Christadelphians and INC that the texts applies only to the incarnate Christ (?)

Again you are wrong about me. We may not agree on some points. But do not make false assumptions about what I believe.

! John 4:9 is a good reference regarding the preexistence and supporting the idea of eternal nature of the only begotten.

Was God changed when he became creator?

Think what you just asked. If there is no first creation, then no. If we suppose a first creation then, yes.

Immutability is eternal. Change, mutability is temporal. A creation requires mutability. These are two different natures. The latter mutability must share immutability and omnipotence in some way or there can be no creation.

[apostoli]

Again you are wrong about me. We may not agree on some points. But do not make false assumptions about what I believe.

Given I've never encountered your ideas in the teaching of any group that purports to be Christian (Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian), and you haven't provided a defense for your opinion regarding the biblical phrase "only begotten Son" I am forced to make assumptions as to where you are getting your ideas from...Who are/were your influences etc

1 John 4:9 is a good reference regarding the preexistence and supporting the idea of eternal nature of the only begotten.

Nice attempt at a sidestep...

In every occurance of monogenes in the NT it refers to an only progeny, progeny are begotten...have origination from a parent...

Was God changed when he became creator?

Think what you just asked. If there is no first creation, then no. If we suppose a first creation then, yes.

Somewhere I understood you as arguing that if the Son was begotten before all ages and is God, then God underwent change. And so, given God is immutable then the Son cannot have been begotten before ages. Did I misunderstand you?

Immutability is eternal. Change, mutability is temporal. A creation requires mutability. These are two different natures. The latter mutability must share immutability and omnipotence in some way or there can be no creation.

?

The church has always maintained that God is immutable in ousia (essence) but not in hypostasis (person), otherwise the Son could not have been incarnated. A hypostasis has personal properties that makes the person real and distinct from other persons who have the same ousia. For instance: manhood is a personal property of the Son, and therefore not communicated to the Father & the Spirit.

You'll encounter people that will blindly declare that ousia and hypostasis are not biblical terms. In fact they are! Ousia is used in the NT to describe the wealth of a person (Luke 15:12), in philosophic use, it refers to what is truely valueable about a thing that defines what it is = its essence - this is how the church uses the term. Hypostasis is used at Heb 1:3 and it is here we learn that the Son has an exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis. Imo, this text alone refutes your opinion and demands the Son had origination (on the basis of Heb 1:3 your opinion would demand that the Son at some stage was not God and at some stage received the charaktēr (imprint) of God).

[apostoli]

God exists as three persons.

You are avoiding the question (as is 37818 by his approval of your response) . I'll repeat my question/s, and would appreciate an answer from either of you that is not evasive...

Are you saying that:

1. There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?
or
2. There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

[37818]

1. There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?
or
2. There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

Let me understand your supposed two different questions.

First both questions suppose Persons in the Godhead.

So before I can correctly answer one or the other, I need to understand what you mean by each question.

In the first question,

1. There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?

Is it to be understood if true, excludes the three Persons being manifistions of God the Father? If so, explain the distinction you are making.

The second question,

. There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

It acknowledges God as a Person. Is this to be understood to really negate real personage of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

[37818]

Somewhere I understood you as arguing that if the Son was begotten before all ages and is God, then God underwent change. And so, given God is immutable then the Son cannot have been begotten before ages. Did I misunderstand you?

It would seem here you understood me. The immutability of God would negate any kind of change. The only way change could be, if, and only if a mutable nature co-existed with God. That mutable nature would then also need to share in the immutability of God in some way. The dual nature is another person with God. We know as the Word, and as the eternal Son of God.

Who are/were your influences etc

The Bible, the identify of God and reason.

[apostoli]

Let me understand your supposed two different questions.

First both questions suppose Persons in the Godhead. So before I can correctly answer one or the other, I need to understand what you mean by each question.

I'll attempt to clarify: The first question requires affirmation or otherwise that there are three individuals who have a common existence as God. The second question requires affirmation or otherwise that there is one individual that has three personalities.

In the first question,

There are three persons who are one in being = God, ie three persons with common existence?

Is it to be understood if true, excludes the three Persons being manifestations of God the Father?

The first question presents the social model used in Trinitarianism. Which, imu, has direct scriptural support.

As for manifestations: Imu, in scripture, the Father is seen via the Son (cp. Jn 12:45), and after Pentecost, the Spirit of God indwells the redeemed (cp. 1 Cor 3:16), and so "we are bound to give thanks always to God [our Father] for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God [our Father] hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess 2:13,16). In short: it is the Father that is always in focus as our aim, and he is revealed by the Son and the Spirit.

The second question,

There is one being (the absolute existor = God) who manifests himself as three persons?

It acknowledges God as a Person. Is this to be understood to really negate real personage of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The second question presents the psycological model. Which, imu, has no direct scriptural support. You will encounter people here at TWEB that give the example "it's like someone with MPD (multiple personality disorder)".

The second question presents Sabellian thought wherein the Father, Son and Spirit are merely modes of existence of a single individual. Something like me being son, husband and parent. Depending what someone's focus is, they will see me in one of those three modes, or simply see me in my entirity.

[37818]

. . . where you are getting your ideas from...Who are/were your influences etc

As I had stated, the Bible, the identity of God, and reason.

As a teenage Christian, I. C. Scofield Reference Bible, on the deity of Christ, and therefore to believe in the trinity explanation. of God. As a young adult, Dr Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Dr Martin denied the teaching of the eternal Son. Regarding Isaiah 9;6, in the section on Mormonism. ! John 4:9 BTW, was one of the verses that I came to the conclusion he was mistaken on this matter.

Later in the late 80's I was asked to become a BBS system operator for a Baptist church. They had set the Nicene Creed as a standard statement of faith of the Board. Because of my disagreement with Dr Martin on eternal Sonship. I found I disagreed with the statment, "begotten of the Father before all worlds," "begotten and not made." It did not sound like eternal Sonship to me.

That is the short of it.

[apostoli]

Hello 37818,

Thankyou for your personal witness below, it has cleared up many a thing for me...also, sorry about the length of this post, concerning immutability I've attempted to examine the idea at several levels...

. . . where you are getting your ideas from...Who are/were your influences etc

As I had stated, the Bible, the identity of God, and reason.

As a teenage Christian, I. C. Scofield Reference Bible, on the deity of Christ, and therefore to believe in the trinity explanation. of God.

I've been using the Scofield Reference Bible for some 30+ years. Its cross referencing has been a wonderful resource. My copy is slowly disintegrating, and a few years ago I was told it is long out of print. Pity.

As a young adult, Dr Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Dr Martin denied the teaching of the eternal Son. Regarding Isaiah 9:6, in the section on Mormonism. 1 John 4:9 BTW, was one of the verses that I came to the conclusion he was mistaken on this matter.

I'm not familiar with Dr Martin's work so I did some research. Came across a PDF for "Kingdom of the Cults". Did a scan for "eternal sonship" and found his reasoning on pages 323-326 where he is discussing the JWs understanding of monogenes ...imo, there are so many defects in his argumentation that, imo, he inadvertantly contradicts himself at times. And worse: In his denial of the pre-existant sonship to refute the JWs he opens the door to more dangerous cults, especially those that deny the Trinity. It is no wonder that you "came to the conclusion he was mistaken on this matter'.
http://tsbalan.com/books/Kingdonofcults.pdf

Later in the late 80's I was asked to become a BBS system operator for a Baptist church.

What is a BBS system operator? (Baptist Broadcasting ?)

They had set the Nicene Creed as a standard statement of faith of the Board. Because of my disagreement with Dr Martin on eternal Sonship. I found I disagreed with the statment, "begotten of the Father before all worlds," "begotten and not made." It did not sound like eternal Sonship to me.

The real issue in the 4th century was whether the Son was natural to the Father, versus the Sonship was via adoption. The Arians could accept the term "begotten not made" but not in the context of "homoousios" as they held the Father and Son had seperate and distinct ousia both being autotheos (God of themselves)...

Arius wrote to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia "...we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten".

Now if the Son was neither begotten nor made but "always was" (as I understood you as suggesting). Then a couple of difficulities arise:

1. "was" implies time in eternity. An idea found in Arian expression. Athanasius refuted the idea by pointing out, by definition there is no time in eternity, no beginnings nor endings.

2. That the Son "always was" implies that he is autotheos. That the Son is autotheos is an idea compatable with Arius' teaching but one that has always been rejected by the greater Church as it excludes the unifying principle - if we do not have the homoousios then we have multiple Gods.

3. That the Son "always was" implies that he was always Son, and if so, such teaches that the Son has always been subordinate and inferior to the Father. Another idea compatible with Arianism, and one that the Churches teaching concerning the begetal and homoousios defends against.

4. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that the Son has the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis. If the Son "always was", then he underwent change when he was imprinted with the Father's hypostasis, and as you have suggested, that which is mutable cannot be God...Of course drawing on Calvin's argument that Godhead is in the ousia and not in the hypostasis, when the Father's ousia was communicated to the Son it was added to his personal properties, and so though there was change in his hypostasis, there was no change in his ousia (Godhead). If so, then we have adoptionism, and tritheism...

Somewhere I understood you as arguing that if the Son was begotten before all ages and is God, then God underwent change. And so, given God is immutable then the Son cannot have been begotten before ages. Did I misunderstand you?

It would seem here you understood me. The immutability of God would negate any kind of change. The only way change could be, if, and only if a mutable nature co-existed with God. That mutable nature would then also need to share in the immutability of God in some way. The dual nature is another person with God. We know as the Word, and as the eternal Son of God.

In terms of immutability, in the OT we do see evidence of God's changeability in his specific activities (he angers, then repents of his anger etc) but he is consistent (unchangeable) in his general operations.

I've been giving a great deal of thought to my understanding of Calvin's teaching, where the immutability is in the ousia (essence) but not in the hypostasis (sum of personal properties). I had considered that the hypostasis was also immutable, and that it was through physis (active nature) that changeability is observed, but such, imu, would deny that Jesus was ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (was made to have equality of identity with mankind - Phil 2:7). So the question arises: On becoming man, did the Son undergo change? I say no in respect to his Godhead, which is simply a personal property that the Father & Spirit also retain as a personal property. Thus in my thinking, manhood was added to the Son as a personal property of his hypostasis. So whilst his hypostasis underwent change, his participation in the Godhood remained immutable (in thought it is helpful to think of ousia as a definition of something being eternal to the hypostasis. If you are familiar with normalisation in database design you might readily understand the idea.)

A further thought: At Chalcedon, in respect to Christ, the formula "two physis, one hypostasis" was agreed upon. Now physis (nature) is almost synonymous with ousia (essence), but, imu, whereas ousia is subjective and appeals to reason, physis is observable through somethings activity - thus physis is proof of a thing's ousia. A complication is the philosophic ideas of "accidents" and "prosopon". "prosopon" is our "faces" that others see eg: our different transitions as we age. Thus the hypostasis in definition doesn't change, but suffers "accidents" - things not essential to our continuous identity (eg: though I age, I remain me). An interesting question arises via the incarnation of the Son: Does his assuming manhood constitute an accident to his hypostasis or a change? Imo, if it effected his self identity, then his hypostasis underwent change...

Ultimately, I think Calvin's solution solves all the "ifs and buts" and resolves your concerns about the immutability of the Godhead...

[37818]

Hello 37818,

Thankyou for your personal witness below, it has cleared up many a thing for me...also, sorry about the length of this post, concerning immutability I've attempted to examine the idea at several levels...

I've been using the Scofield Reference Bible for some 30+ years. Its cross referencing has been a wonderful resource. My copy is slowly disintegrating, and a few years ago I was told it is long out of print. Pity.

There was a paper back reprint. And I do no know if it is now out of print. But you can get the original Scofield Reference Bible notes as a free add on to e-sword free Bible study software download. http://www.e-sword.net

I'm not familiar with Dr Martin's work so I did some research. Came across a PDF for "Kingdom of the Cults". Did a scan for "eternal sonship" and found his reasoning on pages 323-326 where he is discussing the JWs understanding of monogenes ...imo, there are so many defects in his argumentation that, imo, he inadvertantly contradicts himself at times. And worse: In his denial of the pre-existant sonship to refute the JWs he opens the door to more dangerous cults, especially those that deny the Trinity. It is no wonder that you "came to the conclusion he was mistaken on this matter'.
http://tsbalan.com/books/Kingdonofcults.pdf

My copy of the Kingdom of the Cults, was from the early 60's. And it is in storage someplace. This pdf edition, I have the hard copy if it in storagge too. It came with the book on CD. But my copy of the CD was broken. And I was unable to get a replacement copy. Now I have it. Thank you.

What is a BBS system operator? (Baptist Broadcasting ?)

BBS. A computer dial up Bulletin Board System. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system

Thank you. I will comment on the rest some time later.

[37818]

The real issue in the 4th century was whether the Son was natural to the Father, versus the Sonship was via adoption. The Arians could accept the term "begotten not made" but not in the context of "homoousios" as they held the Father and Son had seperate and distinct ousia both being autotheos (God of themselves)...

Arius wrote to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia "...we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten".

Now if the Son was neither begotten nor made but "always was" (as I understood you as suggesting). Then a couple of difficulities arise:

1. "was" implies time in eternity. An idea found in Arian expression. Athanasius refuted the idea by pointing out, by definition there is no time in eternity, no beginnings nor endings.

There are multiple issues here. Point one, there being no time to eternity, would allow saying "begotten before time" which in turn is equal to "never being begotten" from our place in time.

God has no origin. Being co-eternal would mean not having any origin. But to refer to One being of another, makes that One dependent on the other. While having a co-eternal existence.

2. That the Son "always was" implies that he is autotheos. That the Son is autotheos is an idea compatable with Arius' teaching but one that has always been rejected by the greater Church as it excludes the unifying principle - if we do not have the homoousios then we have multiple Gods.

From this argument requires an "ousia" that both suppposed "autootheos" would depend on, negating that either are really any kind of "autotheos" at all. Since there has to be a common "ousia"

[37818]

In terms of immutability, in the OT we do see evidence of God's changeability in his specific activities (he angers, then repents of his anger etc) but he is consistent (unchangeable) in his general operations.

I've been giving a great deal of thought to my understanding of Calvin's teaching, where the immutability is in the ousia (essence) but not in the hypostasis (sum of personal properties). I had considered that the hypostasis was also immutable, and that it was through physis (active nature) that changeability is observed, but such, imu, would deny that Jesus was ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (was made to have equality of identity with mankind - Phil 2:7). So the question arises: On becoming man, did the Son undergo change? I say no in respect to his Godhead, which is simply a personal property that the Father & Spirit also retain as a personal property. Thus in my thinking, manhood was added to the Son as a personal property of his hypostasis. So whilst his hypostasis underwent change, his participation in the Godhood remained immutable (in thought it is helpful to think of ousia as a definition of something being eternal to the hypostasis. If you are familiar with normalisation in database design you might readily understand the idea.)

A further thought: At Chalcedon, in respect to Christ, the formula "two physis, one hypostasis" was agreed upon. Now physis (nature) is almost synonymous with ousia (essence), but, imu, whereas ousia is subjective and appeals to reason, physis is observable through somethings activity - thus physis is proof of a thing's ousia. A complication is the philosophic ideas of "accidents" and "prosopon". "prosopon" is our "faces" that others see eg: our different transitions as we age. Thus the hypostasis in definition doesn't change, but suffers "accidents" - things not essential to our continuous identity (eg: though I age, I remain me). An interesting question arises via the incarnation of the Son: Does his assuming manhood constitute an accident to his hypostasis or a change? Imo, if it effected his self identity, then his hypostasis underwent change...

Ultimately, I think Calvin's solution solves all the "ifs and buts" and resolves your concerns about the immutability of the Godhead...

Two things here. First, you give Calvin's explanation.

Secondly, the Son of God is the one who we are dealing with as YHWH in the OT.

For the record, I see immutability with God. And I see immutability and mutability as two different natures. The Son having both natures. Now unless you can give me a simple proof that this understanding is wrong. We are just going to have to disagree on this.

Furthermore, I see God as a trinity of Persons. And this is inherent to who God is philosophically without the need to appeal to Holy Scripture. And as such is also in agreement with Holy Scripture. The identity of God is key.

[apostoli]

1. "was" implies time in eternity. An idea found in Arian expression. Athanasius refuted the idea by pointing out, by definition there is no time in eternity, no beginnings nor endings.

There are multiple issues here. Point one, there being no time to eternity, would allow saying "begotten before time" which in turn is equal to "never being begotten" from our place in time.

Given that mankind's experience is constraint by time, and that John 1:1 indicates that the Logos/Son was before time and with God (thus not constrained in anyway), then the logical conclusion is that the Son's persistence is external to time! There is nothing in that thought that precludes the Son having been begotten outside of time (ie: in eternity).

Your forcing of the word never into the equation is an argument from semantics, you are still placing the begettal in time. Athanasius would have verbally flayed you for using Arian sophistry.

Your rejection of the idea that "the Son was begotten in eternity" isn't new! The idea was around in Athanasius' day and was flatly rejected by the Church, as it denies the Trinity, making the genuine unity of the Father, Son and Spirit merely a casual relationship of three persons that find themselves in agreement etc etc etc (See Athanasius, Discourse 1 against the Arians).

In my past, I found the 3rd century Western (latin) father Novatian's "Treatise concerning the Trinity" most helpful in coming to an understanding concerning the Trinity. Have a read, see what you think...I've got it in hard copy but it is available online...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...nity#highlight

God has no origin.

Define God! Even men are refered to as being god in the OT, as attested by Jesus himself! Imo, it is a danger to get hung up on semantics, and worse to be clouded by philosophical ideas. As the apostle Paul puts it "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him". In scriptural terms it is the Father that is God and he is the source and cause of the Son's theotēs, thus the Nicean Creed declares the Son "God from God"...

Being co-eternal would mean not having any origin.

Not necessarily. Our hope is that we will become co-eternal with the Father and Son and even "partaker[] of the divine nature (physis 2 Peter 1:4).

But to refer to One being of another, makes that One dependent on the other.

How so? Origination and dependence are seperate ideas. On planet earth there are a myriad species that are fully independent of their parents the moment they are born.

Dependency is a matter of perspective. For instance: Was the Father dependent on the Son's obedience for the salvation of mankind?

Psychologists suggest that until the age of about 5yo the typical child has little to no sense of "other", they perceive everything as an extension of themselves. Jesus suggests that we "become as little children". Using those thoughts, I contemplate the Trinity as the three individuals, as they contemplate their respective self, automatically include the others as an extension of themselves.

...to refer to One being of another, makes that One dependent on the other. While having a co-eternal existence.

I again refer you to Athanasius...if by definition there is no time (timeline) in eternity, and the Father, Son & Spirit persist in eternity, then logically they are co-eternal.

2. That the Son "always was" implies that he is autotheos. That the Son is autotheos is an idea compatable with Arius' teaching but one that has always been rejected by the greater Church as it excludes the unifying principle - if we do not have the homoousios then we have multiple Gods.

From this argument requires an "ousia" that both suppposed "autootheos" would depend on, negating that either are really any kind of "autotheos" at all. Since there has to be a common "ousia"

"Ousia" is an abstraction, not a reality until proved. "Ousia" is the intellectual appraisal of a thing, in which assumptions are made and thereon a thing is categorised in answer to the question "What is this?". "Physis" on the other hand is observable (imu, ousia in action) and proves the reality of a proposed "ousia".

Hebrews 1:3 tells us the Son has the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis. Now in times past hypostasis and ousia where used interchangeably as both indicate "concrete reality of what underlies a thing", though one refers to the particular and the other to the general. Scripture indicates that the physis of the Son evidences his ousia, and it is indicated that the Son's physis is identical to his Father's = "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." (John 5:17 cp. vs19-24) So the conclusion is they retain identical "ousia". Albeit, the Son's is derived.

As the source and cause of the Son's activity (Jn 8:42) we find in scripture a witness to the Son's physis as God, but as he is recipient of the imprint communicated by his Father to him, he is "theos ek theou" (God from God). Whereas, the Father as source and cause of such, is thought of as alone being autotheos (God of himself).

Two things here. First, you give Calvin's explanation.

Secondly, the Son of God is the one who we are dealing with as YHWH in the OT.

For the record, I see immutability with God. And I see immutability and mutability as two different natures. The Son having both natures. Now unless you can give me a simple proof that this understanding is wrong. We are just going to have to disagree on this.

Furthermore, I see God as a trinity of Persons. And this is inherent to who God is philosophically without the need to appeal to Holy Scripture. And as such is also in agreement with Holy Scripture. The identity of God is key.

If you rely on philosophy without the correction of scripture, you are immediately up a creek without a paddle, and will fall into the trap of the Platonists' "fourth man", whereby the ousia of the three precedes the three, and is external to the three. In the Church's teaching the Father's ousia is communicated to the Son & Spirit. Just as our humanity is communicated from our ancestry.

The majority witness in the NT is that God is exclusively the Father of the Son. In other words, only the Father is absolute "o theos". However, there are many texts that tell us that whatever can be attributed to the Father is also attributable to the Son (eg: Jn 1:1; Heb 1:3 etc) so it is apparent that the Son is "theotēs" (Col 2:9). As the manifestation of the Father (cp. Jn 12:45), the Son is God to us.