Trinity: Eternal generation
- Thread starter ALAYMAN
- Start date
You won't find this satisfying, but here goes.
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. - John 16:27-28 KJV
No, this is not a fancy way of saying that the Father sent His Son. The eternal Son is the eternal begotten of the Father.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,046
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
As the Nicene Creed says: "We believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages."
Eternal generation means that the Son is eternal (i.e. there was not "a time when He was not" as the Arians asserted), but the relationship between the first and second Persons of the Trinity is genuinely one of father and son. And since deity is begotten of deity, it's also a way of affirming that they are equal--the Son is not of an inferior nature to the Father. (Again, as the old theological debate went, they are homoousios--of the same substance, not as the Arians said, homoiousios--of similar substance.)
There's an article about this in the Spring 2022 issue [PDF] of the Master's Seminary Journal.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,295
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 113
Thanks, I’ve got church tonight, but I’ll read it after that. Appreciate your perspective/explanation. My hangup is on my modern understanding of the word “begotten” in father/son human terms, which connotes a temporal aspect, and I know that’s not theologically accurate for the relationship of the Father and Son.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,295
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 113
How does this verse express the eternal nature of Christ?
I recall MacArthur saying he once held to Christ's "Eternal Sonship" meaning (if I am understanding correctly) that the "Father-Son" relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity, has existed throughout all eternity. He later renounced this position.
Of course, we understand the roles of each member of the Godhead as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as he has revealed himself to mankind and all we may know of God is from what he chooses to reveal about himself to us. We do not know this relationship from God's perspective aside from the fact that these three persons are distinct one from another yet are of one single essence without conflict or division and is therefore "The True and Everlasting God" (Singular) of which there is no other.
Regarding Augustine's quote, I guess I would have to know the full context of his statement but taking a "SWAG" at it, I would say that one has never existed without the other and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally existent one with another and working together with perfect unity. In the Old Testament, God has revealed himself as "The Father" yet these scriptures speak of "The Son" which John the Beloved refers to as "The Word of God Incarnate" and was revealed to mankind with his incarnation. Christ spoke of the Holy Spirit who was revealed to mankind after Jesus's ascension on the day of Pentecost.
And of course we have the "Filioque" in the Nicene Creed where the Eastern Orthodox Church argues that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Roman Church insists that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son leading to the "Great Schism" of 1054 and I am not certain of what relevance this may have with Augustine's statement which is the topic of question. Perhaps we can get an Augustinian scholar or a representative from the Eastern Orthodox Church to come on here and give us their two cents? Would make for an interesting discussion! You may even want to find where the EOC folks are hanging out as they can be quite interesting to interact with.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,046
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
It was actually the other way around. MacArthur originally believed in what he termed "incarnational Sonship," meaning that the Father-Son relationship came into being at Jesus' birth. He has since retracted that position and believes Sonship is an eternal relationship.
Some of MacArthur's difficulty lay in the language used. To be "begotten" seems to imply a temporal event, and "Son" implies a subordination.
I think it's helpful to note that when the Bible calls Jesus "only begotten [monogenes] Son," it is referring to his unique and privileged status as the Father's heir; it doesn't mean he was "born" and had a beginning. (The Incarnation doesn't count.)
The Son voluntarily laid aside his divine privileges to become a servant (Phil. 2:6-7). He obeys the Father (e.g. Luke 22:42). However, "difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature" (James White, The Forgotten Trinity).
I haven't heard of this before but I'm thinking "begotten" can be applied two ways... The eternal Son begotten of the Father. The only thing one must do is in this instance, release the term begotten from the connotation of at one point in time because both Father and Son are eternally existent. Then there's the begotten in the sense that the Son at one point in time took on His human form via the Virgin Mary. Both aspects are absolutely crucial in God's redemptive work for mankind.
The Father is eternal, so that which procedes from Him is eternal. But I posted a verse where Christ is reported to say just what the Augustine quote says in the OP.
Exactly.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,295
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 113
This is true, in the sense of Christ’s divinity and humanity both being truth, but the doctrine of eternal generation deals with His nature as being eternally existent and of the same essence as the Father (divinity). Christ’s incarnation doesn’t really speak to His eternal nature so much as His human nature and status as the second Adam.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,295
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 113
Ironically, speaking of schisms, there are very able and orthodox 20th century theologians (Grudem et al) that have claimed that the monogenes interpretation of “unique” is better than “begotten”, yet the 18 centuries of orthodoxy prior had argued Christ’s eternality is more in view with “begotten” rather than “unique”.
How bout "uniquely begotten"?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,046
- Reaction score
- 2,137
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son" (Heb. 11:17).
Except that Isaac wasn't Abraham's "only begotten" son. Genesis names eight sons of Abraham. So he was also not in a meaningful sense "unique." And Ishmael was the firstborn, so Isaac wasn't even that.
What he was, was specially privileged by virtue of being the child promised to Abraham and Sarah in their old age. He was Abraham's heir, and a patriarch of God's chosen nation. The promises made to Abraham were reiterated to Isaac. Monogenes is about status, not necessarily circumstances of birth.
There was a fella on the Baptist Board a while back that spammed the forum with multiple threads essentially erasing the distinctions in the Persons of the Trinity, and of their respective ranks by saying things like "Jesus is Yaweh," and "The Holy Spirit is Yahweh," etc. He affirmed there were three, but neither had what might be called, for lack of a better word, an independent, thought or will or emotion. Three identical persons.
But that's what happens when one takes a truth beyond biblical parlance.
It's like the Catholics calling Mary the mother of God. And though the Scriptures refer to her as the mother of the child that was born, She is nowhere identified as the mother of the Son that was given.
Christ as the only begotten Son has nothing to do with the incarnation.
He countered by saying that it is better understood as "unique Son," meaning His Sonship WAS by virtue of His incarnation.
But the name (Not names )in which we're baptized is an immediate correction. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
'Son' is the position and nature of the second divine person. It's eternity is manifest.
If his confusion of the names of God with each Person of the godhead were valid, we could baptize in the name of the Father, Father, and Father.
But that's what happens when one takes a truth beyond biblical parlance.
It's like the Catholics calling Mary the mother of God. And though the Scriptures refer to her as the mother of the child that was born, She is nowhere identified as the mother of the Son that was given.
Christ as the only begotten Son has nothing to do with the incarnation.
He countered by saying that it is better understood as "unique Son," meaning His Sonship WAS by virtue of His incarnation.
But the name (Not names )in which we're baptized is an immediate correction. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
'Son' is the position and nature of the second divine person. It's eternity is manifest.
If his confusion of the names of God with each Person of the godhead were valid, we could baptize in the name of the Father, Father, and Father.
Last edited: