David Henkel on the Divinity of Jesus
I am currently reading through David Henkel’s Against the Unitarians. So far he has given an abundance of food for thought to be digested. Here is one below:
In reasoning correctly it will appear that every being begets its like. Man begets man. A man’s son is as really and substantially a man as his father, possessing his nature! As a human father is a dependent creature, existing in time; even so his son is dependent, having a beginning. Now if God beget a son, why should he not also be like God, possessing his very nature? Is it possible for God to have an only begotten son, without having his nature and attributes? To suppose Christ to be God’s only begotten Son without admitting him to possess Jehovah’s nature and perfections, is indeed a palpable contradiction. Viewed in this light Christ would be a son without his father’s nature. How strange to suppose a son without possessing his father’s nature. Is not self-existence peculiar to God? Are not the perfections of eternity, infinity, immutability, &c. essential to his character? Now how is it possible for God to have a son, who is destitute of his nature and perfections? If God was like a man, his son would also be like the son of a man. But since God is self-existent, eternal, immutable, &c. it must follow that his only begotten Son is like himself: viz. the impression of his substance.