Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
He introduces a concept of the Father as “autotheos” (God of himself) and says the Son’s existence is “in the Father” and dependent on him, using the spring/stream and sun/radiance analogies. What do these images imply about God’s character—especially the Father as “origin of all”—and what parts of that implication clash with modern instincts about equality, independence, and what “fully God” must mean?
Another way to ask: He calls the Father “autotheos” and says the Son depends on the Father, like a spring and stream or sun and radiance. What do those pictures say about the Father as the source, and what feels like it clashes with today’s ideas about equality and what “fully God” means?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
His images imply that God’s inner life has an eternal “source and radiance” structure: the Father is self-existent and the origin, while the Son is eternally from the Father—fully of the same divine nature yet dependent in origin and authority. That can clash with modern instincts that “fully God” must mean independent existence and equal authority.
- He quotes Hippolytus using “autotheos… God of himself,” applying self-existence uniquely to the Father.
- Spring/stream analogy: same water = same nature; if the spring is eternal, the stream is also eternal.
- Yet dependence is central: “the river is totally dependent… the Son… dependent for his existence on the Father.”
- He calls the Father “the origin of the Trinity… the origin of the Son,” and says the Son “does not have a separate existence of his own… His existence is in the Father.”
- Sun/radiance analogy: same substance (as they understood it), different entities; if the sun ceased, the light ceases.
- He uses this to explain why Jesus says “The Father is greater than I” and why Jesus calls the Father “his God.”
- He insists this dependence does not deny deity: the Son has “all the attributes of divinity or godhood.”