# The Eternal Generation of the Son



## natewood3 (Jun 2, 2007)

How important is this doctrine? Are there many prominent theologians who deny this doctrine?


----------



## bookslover (Jun 2, 2007)

natewood3 said:


> How important is this doctrine? Are there many prominent theologians who deny this doctrine?



It has been a traditional doctrine since the days of Nicea. However, in modern times, some Reformed theologians have become increasingly uncomfortable with it - and for good reason, in my opinion.

In modern times, B. B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, John Murray, John Frame and others (including non-Reformed theologians, such as Wayne Grudem) have all questioned the legitimacy of the doctrine to one degree or another. Currently, Robert L. Reymond has done extensive work in this area. See his _A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. 324-331 for a good discussion, during which he highlights the skepticism of Warfield and Murray.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 2, 2007)

natewood3 said:


> How important is this doctrine? Are there many prominent theologians who deny this doctrine?



Nate,

Please see this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=21767


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 2, 2007)

Here are some writings on the subject for consideration:

John Gill, _A Dissertation Concerning The Eternal Sonship of Christ, Shewing By Whom It Has Been Denied And Opposed, and By Whom Asserted And Defended In All Ages Of Christianity._

Curt Daniel, _The Trinity_

Samuel E. Waldron, _A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ_

Louis Berkhof, _The Eternal Generation of the Son_

Theopedia article

Samuel Miller, _Letters on the Eternal Sonship of Christ: Addressed to the Rev. Professor Stuart, of Andover_

Wilhelmus à Brakel, _The Eternal Generation of the Son as the Second Person of the Trinity_, in _The Christian's Reasonable Service_, 1.4, 147

Francis Turretin, _Twenty-Ninth Question: The Eternal Generation of the Son. Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm_ in _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1.3.29, 292

Richard A. Muller, _The Eternal Generation of the Son_, in _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_, 4.6.1, 283


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 2, 2007)

If there is no eternal generation then Jesus is not the Son and the Father is not the Father. I think the Greek speaking fathers new better what "only begotten" means better than modern English speaking scholars 2000 years later.


----------



## satz (Jun 2, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> If there is no eternal generation then Jesus is not the Son and the Father is not the Father. I think the Greek speaking fathers new better what "only begotten" means better than modern English speaking scholars 2000 years later.



I don't think that necessarily follows. The relationship of Father and Son between the first two members of the trinity could well refer to the event/time when the Word became flesh and took on the form of the human being. That could be the 'begetting' that took place between the Father and the Son. Hence, the Lord Jesus is not an eternal son, but an incarnate son.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jun 2, 2007)

satz said:


> I don't think that necessarily follows. The relationship of Father and Son between the first two members of the trinity could well refer to the event/time when the Word became flesh and took on the form of the human being. That could be the 'begetting' that took place between the Father and the Son. Hence, the Lord Jesus is not an eternal son, but an incarnate son.


then you have justified a quasi Jehovah Witness's position. Jesus blatantly said, "Before Abraham was I am". There is no way to get around Eternal Generation and Eternal Sonship of Jesus. Jesus spoke of His preexistence with His Father in the Gospel of John, He also spoke of His relationship in His preexistence with the Father, with the Father being His Father, and He being the Son.


----------



## satz (Jun 2, 2007)

Slippery said:


> then you have justified a quasi Jehovah Witness's position. Jesus blatantly said, "Before Abraham was I am". There is no way to get around Eternal Generation and Eternal Sonship of Jesus.



Uh oh. Hope this isn't the thread that gets me the boot from the board.

Respectfully, LOGICALLY your conclusion does not follow

Jesus said he was before Abraham. But that does not have to mean the Son of God was before Abraham. It could just as well mean the Word of God, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity, was before Abraham. Which indeed he was.

The _man_ Jesus Christ, the Messiah, a being fully God yet with the nature of the seed of Abraham, did not exist until about 2000 years ago when the Word of God took on flesh in the womb of Mary.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 2, 2007)

I largely agree with the eternal generation of the Son, but, respectfully, I think its fallacious to argue that the denial of it leads to Arianism. Actually, if we " had to " attach the denial of it to a heresy, we would link it to Tritheism (at least in the Reformed denials of it).

Arianism denied the homoousios of the Logos with the Father, denoting Him as a creature. Those who deny eternal generation view the Word, Christ, as "very God of very God", they are just uncomfortable with the "feel" of subordination that this would seem to imply.

They still affirm three self-existent, underived Hypostases in the Godhead. They just deny the hypostatic relations of "origin" among them.

Personally, the argument that truly "locked" the eternal generation of the Son in my mind was his denotation elsewhere as the " Word " of God. Because whether its the "Word" in John 1:1, or the "Wisdom" of God in Proverbs, or the statements that God created all things *through* Christ Jesus, the " hypostatic " (though not essential) subordination or derivation of the Son is preserved, even though his substance and essence is consubstantial with the Father.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 2, 2007)

I didn't say that denial of eternal generation was tantamount to tritheism. I just said, that, if the denial of eternal generation is, in fact, wrong, then the "result" would be much closer to tritheism,_ as opposed_ to Arianism, since you would still be affirming three consubstantial hypostases.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 2, 2007)

I understand.

I do not agree that a denial of eternal generation is tantamount to tritheism. I think it _leans_ toward that, but the two are not equivalent. in my opinion, true tritheism would postulate three separate hypostases, as well as three different ousiai (I'm assuming that's the plural) or substances. And in that respect I think that tritheistic charge is fallacious, even though I would agree with the eternal generation of the Son.

Curious, books:

Do you not see _some sort of_ hypostatic subordination in the "God", and the "Word of God", or in the God, and the "Wisdom of God", in the fact that God created all things _through_ Jesus Christ?

Also, one passage that helped me was the Scripture in John 5 (forget the exact reference) where it said that the Jews sought to stone him, because _they understood_ His claim that God was His Father as equivalent to Jesus claiming to be, in nature, God.

If claiming to be the "Son" is tantamount to affirming Deity, then I find it hard to say that the "Son" is just a reference to the incarnate human nature of Christ.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jun 2, 2007)

satz said:


> Uh oh. Hope this isn't the thread that gets me the boot from the board.
> 
> Respectfully, LOGICALLY your conclusion does not follow
> 
> Jesus said he was before Abraham. But that does not have to mean the Son of God was before Abraham. It could just as well mean the Word of God, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity, was before Abraham. Which indeed he was.


now you are bordering on modalism. When Jesus refers to Himself as the Son in the Gospel of John He was speaking from eternity to eternity and not from the period of His incarnation.

*No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].*


----------



## Ravens (Jun 2, 2007)

Slippery,

Your assessment is not valid, in my opinion. Once again, satz is not denying the preexistence of the Logos. He is saying that the title "Son" does not refer to eternal generation: Thus, the 2nd person of the Trinity could have been eternally preexistant (eternal and consubstantial) with the Father; however, the appellation "Son" refers only to His human nature, and is not reflective of divine origination.

Therefore, _in that scheme
_, the Logos is hypostatically distinct from God, though consubstantial with God; but the "Son" and "Father" are to be interpreted _solely_ economically and not ontologically. Therein lies the difference. He is neither verging on Arianism nor Modalism. At the worst, he is verging on Tritheism.

Once again, I disagree with him; I just don't think that people are attacking the critical issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 2, 2007)

It is as simple as this folks:
1. The eternal generation of the Son is upheld in both Nicea and Chalcedon.
2. It is repeated, in some places verbatim, in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
3. This board upholds the Creeds and Confessions.

I *refuse* to allow the propagation of an individual's denial of orthodox Christology. It is up to Synods and Councils to modify our Confession and not individuals.

bookslover has been suspended for 2 weeks for ignoring my warning in a previous thread regarding teaching contra our Confession on this board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 2, 2007)

I forgot to mention the Athanasian Creed:


> THE ATHANASIAN CREED
> 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
> 
> 2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
> ...


----------



## Ravens (Jun 2, 2007)

Mr. L.,

To clarify, I adhere to the doctrine of eternal generation. I just don't find it helpful when people charge them with Arianism, modalism, etc. If one had to pick a heresy, it would be tritheism. The best and most effective critiques are, indeed, accurate critiques.

Just clarifying.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 3, 2007)

satz said:


> I don't think that necessarily follows. The relationship of Father and Son between the first two members of the trinity could well refer to the event/time when the Word became flesh and took on the form of the human being. That could be the 'begetting' that took place between the Father and the Son. Hence, the Lord Jesus is not an eternal son, but an incarnate son.



Jesus was not begotten by the Father in the Incarnation but conceived by the Holy Spirit. And Ps 2 clearly calls Jesus "Son" before the Incarnation.


----------



## etexas (Jun 3, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Jesus was not begotten by the Father in the Incarnation but conceived by the Holy Spirit. And Ps 2 clearly calls Jesus "Son" before the Incarnation.


What Patrick said.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 3, 2007)

Christ did not pre-exist the incarnation for Christ is the Son "manifest in the flesh". Am I correct?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Jesus was not begotten by the Father in the Incarnation but conceived by the Holy Spirit. And Ps 2 clearly calls Jesus "Son" before the Incarnation.



Thank you. That was helpful.

Booklover,
You mentioned Frame as one of those who had questioned the doctrine. I want to follow this up. Do you know offhand where I could find this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Booklover,
> You mentioned Frame as one of those who had questioned the doctrine. I want to follow this up. Do you know offhand where I could find this?


Jacob,

He can't answer for a couple of weeks. I'm guessing if Frame has this view that you could find it in _The Doctrine of God_. He has a lengthy treatment of the Trinity there.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 3, 2007)

All, yes, this is a place of theological reflection. Yes, we should discuss doctrine. But understand, if one were to reject as error the eternal generation of the Son, they would not make it to heaven, and suffer for all eternity under the wrath of God for denying God as Christ has revelaed Him. This should be, at no time, a light matter to throw around as if we were speaking about what color the hymnals should be, or whether the pulpit should be made out of glass or wood. This is the doctrine of God. Tread carefully.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 5, 2007)

In discussing eternal generation shouldn't a distinction be made between eternal generation regarding His essence and eternal generation regarding His relationship as the second person of the Trinity?

Would one be in error for believing that the Son is eternally generated in His role as Son, but not in His essence as God?


----------



## turmeric (Jun 6, 2007)

For those who want Scripture -

It (eternal generation) is the only doctrinal discussion of the deity of Christ that depends directly on Biblical language for its basic content, for example: 
John 1:1 
John 1:1 
John 3:16 
John 5:20 
John 5:26 
John 14:11 John 17:21 
John 10:38 
Hebrews 1:3 
Psalm 2:7 (quoted in Acts 13:33 & Hebrews 1:5; 5:5) 

quoted from Theopedia


----------



## natewood3 (Jun 8, 2007)

Is Calvin's view that Christ is autotheos, God in himself in essence, not deriving His essence from the Father, but He is eternally begotten as the Son in relation to the Father?


----------

