# MP3's by Robert Reymond



## shackleton

Enjoy

Monergism :: Search Results


----------



## Blueridge Believer

shackleton said:


> Enjoy
> 
> Monergism :: Search Results



Forgive my ignorance brother, but could you give me a little info on this preacher?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Robert Reymond - Theopedia

Robert L. Reymond is a Reformed theologian and Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, FL. He holds B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Bob Jones University and is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to taking the chair of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary for more than twenty years. He has authored numerous articles in theological journals and various reference works, and has written some ten books. 

Reymond is one of the Reformed theologians who adheres to supralapsarianism. [1]


----------



## JonathanHunt

Just some random bloke...


----------



## reformedcop

Amazon.com: A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated: Books: Robert L. Reymond


----------



## RamistThomist

He's good on salvation but has his own quirks.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Blueridge Baptist said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Monergism :: Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive my ignorance brother, but could you give me a little info on this preacher?
Click to expand...


Author of the best modern systematic theology, In my humble opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist

He's very good on RCC, Scripture, doctrine of God, and mostly on salvation. He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.


----------



## ADKing

Ivanhoe said:


> He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.



That "one embarassing faux pax" is a denial of the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. This exception puts Reymond outside of the pale of catholic (little c) orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the universal church. Tread _very_ carefully.


----------



## Davidius

ADKing said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "one embarassing faux pax" is a denial of the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. This exception puts Reymond outside of the pale of catholic (little c) orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the universal church. Tread _very_ carefully.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

ADKing said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "one embarassing faux pax" is a denial of the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. This exception puts Reymond outside of the pale of catholic (little c) orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the universal church. Tread _very_ carefully.
Click to expand...


I was thinking of something else, actually. Except for a few chapters, I do really like Reymond's book.


----------



## shackleton

Do you mean that Jesus, the man, is not a part of the Trinity? He only came into existence in time about 2000 years ago? The Son of God is eternal but Jesus the man is not?


----------



## RamistThomist

shackleton said:


> Do you mean that Jesus, the man, is not a part of the Trinity? He only came into existence in time about 2000 years ago? The Son of God is eternal but Jesus the man is not?



That is not what Reymond means. We need to be fair to Reymond on that point. Even worse, RTS uses Reymond's ST and thus would be purveyors of error, if true. 

However, the chapter can be confusing. As I understand the chapter(s). He disagrees with the clause in the creed that says the son is very God of (genitive or origin) very God. Reymond sees the clause saying, probably rightly, that Christ is deriving his essence from the Father. Reymond then takes issue with that, opting to say that Christ is autotheos (God in and of himself).


----------



## bookslover

Ivanhoe said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean that Jesus, the man, is not a part of the Trinity? He only came into existence in time about 2000 years ago? The Son of God is eternal but Jesus the man is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Reymond means. We need to be fair to Reymond on that point. Even worse, RTS uses Reymond's ST and thus would be purveyors of error, if true.
> 
> However, the chapter can be confusing. As I understand the chapter(s). He disagrees with the clause in the creed that says the son is very God of (genitive or origin) very God. Reymond sees the clause saying, probably rightly, that Christ is deriving his essence from the Father. Reymond then takes issue with that, opting to say that Christ is autotheos (God in and of himself).
Click to expand...


That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.



Richard, it has been explained in a previous thread that the "generation" terminates on the "person" or the Son's "manner of subsistence." It does not pertain to His "existence." The Son's existence is one with the Father and the Spirit. If you claim the Son's existence is "independent" you teach Tritheism, as has been shown to you on numerous occasions.


----------



## JM

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Reymond is one of the Reformed theologians who adheres to supralapsarianism. [1]


----------



## Bygracealone

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, it has been explained in a previous thread that the "generation" terminates on the "person" or the Son's "manner of subsistence." It does not pertain to His "existence." The Son's existence is one with the Father and the Spirit. If you claim the Son's existence is "independent" you teach Tritheism, as has been shown to you on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...


Thanks Rev. Winzer. 

Folks, if you're interested in pursuing this subject further, you do well to do a search on this board under "eternal generation." 

Here are a few links:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/nicene-christology-21767/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/eternal-generation-son-22040/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/calvin-eternal-generation-son-11259/#post148758

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-son-generate-being-god-24517/


----------



## SolaGratia

I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> The Son's existence is one with the Father and the Spirit.



That's right. And neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Father for His existence, or for His Personhood. All three Persons exist together, eternally, as the one God. The Father does not have priority of existence, either temporally or logically, before the other two Persons. All three Persons have existed simultaneously (for want of a better word) for eternity.

Both tritheism and modalism must be denied. I deny both.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Both tritheism and modalism must be denied. I deny both.



Now if we could only get you to use language which reflects your conviction, so that you stop speaking as if there are three "existences." What you deny one moment you affirm the next.

Richard, is the second person of the blessed Trinity the eternal Son of God?


----------



## fredtgreco

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Son's existence is one with the Father and the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. And neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Father for His existence, or for His Personhood. All three Persons exist together, eternally, as the one God. The Father does not have priority of existence, either temporally or logically, before the other two Persons. All three Persons have existed simultaneously (for want of a better word) for eternity.
> 
> Both tritheism and modalism must be denied. I deny both.
Click to expand...


Richard, you are wrong. Reymond is wrong. This has been played out on multiple fora (OPC, Warfield, etc) and this very list.

Your attacks on Nicea will not be tolerated. Quite frankly, it shows you to be a very poor Presbyterian, since you continually refuse the pastoral counsel and admonishment of the brethren in order to agitate on this *well settled* point.

Cease and desist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

bookslover said:


> That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.



I only have the first edition of Robert Reymond's book, but did he not modify his position in the second edition?


----------



## shackleton

When studying the Trinity (I came from a Onesness Pentecostal background), I was told that Jesus, not the Son, was not a part of the Trinity, he did not exist, as Jesus the man, prior to his incarnation. I was told that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one in essence and not divided, they are all Spirit but the Son agreed, as a part of the covenant, to become man and take his punishment upon himself. There was not a man in heaven prior to the incarnation. I was also told that even now *Jesus Christ is not a part of the Trinity. * 

Like I said I came from a oneness background so this made perfect sense because they are basically modalists, the Father _is_ the Son _is_ the Holy Spirit. They believe that the one God became Jesus in time so this made perfect sense to me. 

Is this not the reformed view? I have never heard anyone else say this, outside oneness circles.


----------



## Civbert

fredtgreco said:


> ...this *well settled* point.



Since Richard has be told to "cease and desist", can you show me where this has been settled? And since we are saying that "Reymond is wrong", is his teaching heretical? I mean, is his error more than semantics? If his error is fundamental - to the point where it strikes at orthodox dogma, then I want to understand what this mistake was. It must be very serious for you to demand Richard to "cease and desist".


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I only have the first edition of Robert Reymond's book, but did he not modify his position in the second edition?



He changed some of the language (and examples, Cf. Letham) I believe but not the concept.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> ... so that you stop speaking as if there are three "existences."




If there is one existence, then this logically implies that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. 

One "substance" works since it does not necessarily imply one person. 

One God exists in three persons. As long as we don't say God is one person, this works. But if there is one "existence" then we can not distinguish between the three persons. It implies they are all the same person. Isn't that the kind of language we want to avoid?


----------



## AV1611

*FYI: *The Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity by Roger Beckwith


----------



## Civbert

This is interesting: Eternal generation of the Son - Theopedia


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...this *well settled* point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Richard has be told to "cease and desist", can you show me where this has been settled? And since we are saying that "Reymond is wrong", is his teaching heretical? I mean, is his error more than semantics? If his error is fundamental - to the point where it strikes at orthodox dogma, then I want to understand what this mistake was. It must be very serious for you to demand Richard to "cease and desist".
Click to expand...


Yes, it sounds like Reymond has been anathematized twice in this thread (first by ADKing).


----------



## py3ak

Louis Berkhof, speaking of the eternal generation of the Son.



> _It is an generation of the personal subsistence rather than of the divine essence of the Son._ Some have spoken as if the Father generated the essence of the Son, but this is equivalent to saying that He generated His own essence, for the essence of both the Father and the Son is exactly the same. It is better to say that the Father generates the personal subsistence of the Son, but thereby also communicates to Him the divine essence in its entirety. But in doing this we should guard against the idea that the Father first generated a second person, and then communicated the divine essence to this person, for that would lead to the conclusion that the Son was not generated out of the divine essence, but created out of nothing. In the work of generation there was a communication of essence; it was one indivisible act. And in virtue of this communication the Son also has life in Himself.



Is it proper to say that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is chiefly of importance as it safeguards both the unity of the divine nature and the reality of the personal distinctions?


----------



## Stephen

Ivanhoe said:


> He's good on salvation but has his own quirks.



Don't we all. It must be that sin nature that makes us quirky.


----------



## Stephen

ADKing said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "one embarassing faux pax" is a denial of the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. This exception puts Reymond outside of the pale of catholic (little c) orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the universal church. Tread _very_ carefully.
Click to expand...


No, read his argument. It does not put him outside the pale of orthodoxy. He is strongly Trinitarian and holds to the fully deity and humanity of Christ. He opposes Origen's doctrine and is very careful in guarding against heresy.


----------



## Stephen

bookslover said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean that Jesus, the man, is not a part of the Trinity? He only came into existence in time about 2000 years ago? The Son of God is eternal but Jesus the man is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what Reymond means. We need to be fair to Reymond on that point. Even worse, RTS uses Reymond's ST and thus would be purveyors of error, if true.
> 
> However, the chapter can be confusing. As I understand the chapter(s). He disagrees with the clause in the creed that says the son is very God of (genitive or origin) very God. Reymond sees the clause saying, probably rightly, that Christ is deriving his essence from the Father. Reymond then takes issue with that, opting to say that Christ is autotheos (God in and of himself).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephen

SolaGratia said:


> I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?



Yes, he has retired from Knox Seminary. He is still in demand as a speaker. He teaches every summer at the London Baptist Seminary.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Thread problem: MP3's by Robert Reymond*

This thread became corrupted as I was going to post Matt's warning from one of the previous threads on the subject of eternal generation of the son. Since I cannot access the thread now, I've locked it till that can be fixed. 
Here is Matt's post from the earlier thread. The moderators, admins and owners take this very seriously.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/eternal-generation-son-22040/#post275256


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ugh. Standby. I'm going to fix this problem in a bit when I get some time. Heed that warning above. Some may have already stepped over a line they've been warned about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Note. I ended up Copying the thread to a new thread and it is back open. Researching why the Post Thanks hack is causing these issues. Those thanked previously have not lost thanks as I moved your original thread to an area inaccessible elsewhere with thanks intact. In the meantime, you may continue discussion here.


----------



## Davidius

That a person as educated and popular in confessional Reformed circles as Reymond could be anathematized by several men on this board whom I really respect scares me. I don't mean to say that it bothers me that you guys hold such strong opinions. But if he, who is (seems?) to be no stranger to orthodoxy, could be in _such_ error because he wants to try to go into a little more depth than the Nicene Creed (which is relatively short) does concerning the Trinity, is to be anathematized, then I worry for my own salvation. At this point I don't even understand the debate. Does that mean that I am on the edge of perdition? I ask this honestly.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... so that you stop speaking as if there are three "existences."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is one existence, then this logically implies that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit.
> 
> One "substance" works since it does not necessarily imply one person.
> 
> One God exists in three persons.
Click to expand...


First, no one allows a consistent use of logic to determine the parameters of a discussion on the Trinity. Push logic too far in either direction and heresy is the only possible outcome. We must be content to rest in what Scripture reveals on this matter.

Secondly, you contradict yourself. You begin by saying that "one existence" implies that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit, and you conclude by saying "One God exists in three persons." The suffix "s" on "exists" indicates a singular verb.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).

Blessings.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> First, no one allows a consistent use of logic to determine the parameters of a discussion on the Trinity. Push logic too far in either direction and heresy is the only possible outcome. We must be content to rest in what Scripture reveals on this matter.


I agree, we must be content on what Scripture reveals. You say that if we insist on using too much logic when we try to understand parts of the Bible (specifically, the Doctrine of the Trinity), that the "only possible outcome" is heresy?! A proper understand of the Bible must be rational or we can not understand it. If we do not understand it, we can not believe it. Faith is not irrational belief in what we do not understand. 

It is one thing to say we must be content with what the Bible reveals to us - it is another to say if we reason to much about it, we will be forced into heresy. In effect, you are proclaiming that the Doctrine of the Trinity is unreasonable. And you are implying that the Doctrine of the Trinity, fully reasoned out, contradicts itself and/or the Scriptures. 

We must be content with what the Bible reveals to us. That includes what Scripture tells us "by good and necessary consequence". However, what is not necessarily implied by Scripture, may not be considered anything other than speculation. So the question is, is the Doctrine of the Trinity a good and necessary consequence of the Scriptures? If so, it must be fully rational and non-contradictory in all it's logical implications. It can not lead to heresy unless it is un-scriptural because Scripture can not contradict itself. 



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, you contradict yourself. You begin by saying that "one existence" implies that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit, and you conclude by saying "One God exists in three persons." The suffix "s" on "exists" indicates a singular verb.


 Nothing contradictory about it. The singular verb applies to the singular God. It does not apply to a singular person. It does not imply that there is only one person. It does imply there are three Persons that exist in the one God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Davidius said:


> That a person as educated and popular in confessional Reformed circles as Reymond could be anathematized by several men on this board whom I really respect scares me. I don't mean to say that it bothers me that you guys hold such strong opinions. But if he, who is (seems?) to be no stranger to orthodoxy, could be in _such_ error because he wants to try to go into a little more depth than the Nicene Creed (which is relatively short) does concerning the Trinity, is to be anathematized, then I worry for my own salvation. At this point I don't even understand the debate. Does that mean that I am on the edge of perdition? I ask this honestly.



David,

Every now and again, I want to point some of you young men to the Proverbs to read certain verses about young men. NOBODY has anathemized Reymond here. Grow up. You need to read what has been said.

This is a Confessional board. I don't know why our injunctions surpise people. Sometimes I wonder if I'm taking crazy pills that I have to point this out so many times.

The funny thing is that everyone is a big fan of this idea when it's somebody like Osteen or Hagee or someone from the emergent movement that is criticized. "Golly, I'm so surprised a Confessionally Reformed board would have problems with Osteen!"

I need to create a boiler plate notice that people can read. I don't know how many times I've been cast into outer darkness by people because I turn down their application and they tell me we're rigid Reformed people that are prematurely separating the sheep from the goats.

Newsflash: This place isn't heaven. This place isn't even the Church.

This a discussion board based on the Reformed Confessions. One of those teensy little items in that Confession is Nicene and Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Now, there are plenty of people who probably find that to be silly and quaint.

After all, maybe we ought to just let some Oneness Pentecostals in here to debate this issue. Why not? They have scholars too.

The other boiler plate message I need to write is the "I don't care which Reformed guy you can dig up that believes this thing. Just because he's respected in something doesn't mean he speaks for the Reformed in a thing."

The Swiss reformation was not like the Lutheran reformation that can be attributed to one or two folks. Calvin gets a big nod but Reformed theology comes from many contributing streams and Calvin himself was taught much by the likes of Martyr, Bullinger and others on some key Reformed ideas.

The strength of Reformed theology, in fact, is found in the very Biblical idea that in the company of many elders is found wisdom. Our very individual approach to theology gives us the illusion that we can simply collect our favorite theologians like so much of a schmorgesborg and piece together truth on our own authority.

Ultimately we uphold this idea because those of us who own, admin, and moderate this board believe this concept to be Biblical. We're convinced it is so, in part, because we've studied it and "sat at the feet" of our forebears who gave us Confessions toward this end.

If you don't like the Confessions and you don't like our firm convictions on this topic then you have two options:
1. Keep your mouth shut and enjoy other topics because there are certain topics, like the FV and like Nicence orthodoxy, that we don't allow deviation.
2. Leave.

Now, if you choose to leave, then God bless you as you go. I believe you are in spiritual peril as much for the theological approach as well as the fact that going against the consensus of centuries of Church wisdom on this issue is never a good bet.

That said, we neither anathemize men nor discipline them nor declare them non-Christian here. We just don't let people openly flaunt our rules that are clearly posted, restated, and restated again.

And I'm tired of re-stating the obvious to brash people that think they have a _right_ to do so.

Ask people who participate on some other "Anything Goes" boards to get a sense for that atmosphere. We might as well call ourselves the "Book of Judges" board when we stop being so obnoxious about certain Truths.


----------



## Davidius

Hi Rich,

It has been stated by one person in this thread that Robert Reymond is "outside of catholic orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the Church." Another person stated that "anyone who rejects the doctrine of eternal generation cannot enter heaven." I realize that these are not official ecclesiastical anathemas but I hope you get my point. Everyone knows what Reymond believes; his Systematic Theology is the most popular of our time. He is also in good standing in a confessionally Reformed denomination and, although everyone knows where he stands, he has not been brought to trial. So it just seems odd to read such harsh words. 

Furthermore, I am not at all trying to shake up confessionalism. I am merely concerned because I am willing to admit that I don't understand the Trinity. I can neither accept nor reject eternal generation because I don't understand it. My question was whether this, according to those who made the statements quoted above, means that I cannot enter heaven. It's an honest question, and really has nothing to do with protesting the rules of this board.

Please know that I understand everything you said about the importance of Confessionalism and the nature of this board. I have been very appreciative when you made similar statements regarding protests against the RPW and do not want to be inconsistent by undermining you here. The doctrine of Trinity is just difficult; heretics throughout history have always seemed to err on it. Of course I can say "God is one in nature/substance and three in persons," but I have no idea what this means and no one ever seems to say anything other than that when describing the Trinity. I guess I am just worried that I, when trying to actually _understand_ what that formula means, will accidentally start believing something heretical without knowing it.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, no one allows a consistent use of logic to determine the parameters of a discussion on the Trinity. Push logic too far in either direction and heresy is the only possible outcome. We must be content to rest in what Scripture reveals on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, we must be content on what Scripture reveals. You say that if we insist on using too much logic when we try to understand parts of the Bible (specifically, the Doctrine of the Trinity), that the "only possible outcome" is heresy?! A proper understand of the Bible must be rational or we can not understand it. If we do not understand it, we can not believe it. Faith is not irrational belief in what we do not understand.
> 
> It is one thing to say we must be content with what the Bible reveals to us - it is another to say if we reason to much about it, we will be forced into heresy. In effect, you are proclaiming that the Doctrine of the Trinity is unreasonable. And you are implying that the Doctrine of the Trinity, fully reasoned out, contradicts itself and/or the Scriptures.
Click to expand...


Please make some attempt to honestly represent what I wrote. I never said anything about "using too much logic." I said that we cannot push logic to determine the parameters. I haven't said we shouldn't use reason to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity can be reasonably understood, but only within the parameters of Scriptural revelation. In other words, the reasoning must be within the parameters of one substance, three subsistences. Push logic further than these paramenters and heresy can be the only result.



Civbert said:


> Nothing contradictory about it. The singular verb applies to the singular God. It does not apply to a singular person. It does not imply that there is only one person. It does imply there are three Persons that exist in the one God.



At no point did I suggest there is only one person. The three are personally distinct subsistences, but not three separate existences. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist as distinct persons, not as distinct Gods.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

David,

Clarifications are OK. Learning about it is OK. What we will not tolerate, and some are slow to learn, is that they will not use this as a venue to promote a view contrary to the Confessions on this point.

We are criticized by some for not being tighter on some things and probably permit too much. This is one place where proponents are simply not permitted. I'm stating this violently because there are some people that I otherwise like that are not getting the message.

I don't have to argue _against_ Nicene orthodoxy in order to learn about it. I also don't have to embrace Reymond, assume he must have something good to say because he was a Reformed theologian, in order to learn about it either.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thank you David for accepting my admonition so amicably. My ire is really more generally, rather than specifically, directed. Sometimes it's the post that sets off what is beginning to boil over rather that makes it seem to the receiver as if it's "all them". You have not been the target of my concern generally in this thread.

Let me also add, generally, that the "posts of anathema" are generally unhelpful. Not everybody who is outside the Confessions on an issue is hellbound. Obviously there are some errors more serious than others but even the Church ever only bars from fellowship but cannot make infallible decrees about an individual's salvation. Like anything else that I consider a major deviation from orthodox thinking, it is important to warn people and ensure they stay clear of the danger as well as to not provide a soapbox like the PB for a heterodox view.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> I don't have to argue _against_ Nicene orthodoxy in order to learn about it.


Yes and no. No, you don't have to take a contrary position to understand orthodox doctrine, but yes we should understand arguments both for and against orthodox doctrine. How can one reasonable understand the Doctrine of the Trinity, if we don't understand the heresies that the doctrine was formulated to counter. 


However, in _this_ case, no one is attacking orthodox doctrine. Some men have rashly implied that Reymond is unorthodox on the Trinity. But if we simply go by the word of a few men, we will have to stop all discussion on the views of quite a few church fathers. But we have no church ruling to go by, and no one I know of is planing on bringing Reymond up on charge of heresy. 



> I also don't have to embrace Reymond, assume he must have something good to say because he was a Reformed theologian, in order to learn about it either.



No, but you do not lean about Nicene orthodoxy if you can not talk about it. 

So this is the question: Are the owners and moderators of this board ruling that any discussion of Reymond's views of "eternal generation" is an attack on the Doctrine of the Trinity? Because I still have questions about it, and I'd like to know if I'm going to be baned for asking them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

First, we do have a "ruling" on eternal generation and it exists in the Confessions. Need I repeat the statement that this is not the Church? There won't be any trials here.

Insofar as Reymond and others disagree with eternal generation, his views are un-Confessional. In another thread, it was demonstrated his views on the "light of nature" were as well. That is an opinion that has all the weight that yours does which causes you to embrace the man even as I reject his views on both points.

There is an underlying approach to orthodoxy here that you will likely find intellectually disatisfying given your epistmelogical approach to the Scriptures. I know, for some, that's the worst kind of heresy that can be committed but, I assure you, I will sleep soundly tonight that my conscience is not stung and that I believe I stand within the Church below the Scriptures and not above both in my approach.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> First, we do have a "ruling" on eternal generation and it exists in the Confessions. Need I repeat the statement that this is not the Church? There won't be any trials here.


And herein lies the problem. "Eternal generation" is a phrase, it is not in itself a doctrine. There is a meaning to the phrase that is _intended_ to support the Doctrine of the Trinity. But it is _not_ itself the doctrine.



SemperFideles said:


> Insofar as Reymond and others disagree with eternal generation, his views are un-Confessional. In another thread, it was demonstrated his views on the "light of nature" were as well.


 No trial? Right. If that's not was not a trial, then discussion of his views should be open. You are not the Church. 



SemperFideles said:


> That is an opinion that has all the weight that yours does which causes you to embrace the man even as I reject his views on both points.


 Good. Then since this is your opinion, and not a ruling of the Church, and no one is pressing charges, it is merely a matter of opinion and open to debate. As soon as you have demonstrated your authority do declare Reymond outside of the bounds of orthodoxy, then I will disagree with your opinion - and there are no grounds for stopping any debate on the issue at hand. 

I have not embraced Reymond. I have tried to defend him against what I believe are ridicules charges of being un-orthodox or "un-Confessional". He has at no point rejected any orthodox doctrine as far as I an tell. He has argued that the phrase "eternal generation" appears to contradict the Doctrine of the Trinity. Whether he is right is a matter of in-house debate. It is not a question of orthodox theology, but a matter of terminology. If anyone feels that Reymond has rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity, then they should be ready to press charges. 

However, this is your board. You have a right to be wrong here. If you believe Reymond is attacking orthodox doctrine, you don't need a Church ruling. You don't have to listen to anyone but your own opinion. For that matter, you can kick me off the board without any justification at all. This is not a democracy. 

I will simply state that it is my opinion, having read Reymond's arguments on the phrase "eternal generation" in his "New Systematic Theology" that it is you who are wrong on Reymond.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> However, this is your board. You have a right to be wrong here. If you believe Reymond is attacking orthodox doctrine, you don't need a Church ruling. You don't have to listen to anyone but your own opinion. For that matter, you can kick me off the board without any justification at all. This is not a democracy.



Then we're in agreement that, with the same "authority of personal opinion" that I possess to decide the issue will not be discussed here, Reymond possesses to re-define orthodoxy because _he_ believes eternal generation contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. Well, the framers of the WCF believed otherwise. I believe otherwise. Every NAPARC body confesses otherwise.

I'm glad we understand each other.


----------



## Civbert

(My apology to Rich. I have deleted this comment because it was showing disrespect.)


----------



## Stephen

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> Blessings.




You are not the only one, brother.


----------



## Civbert

Stephen said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> Blessings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not the only one, brother.
Click to expand...


Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.



This is unhelpful. Every Westminster divine who commented on eternal generation did so in terms of Nicene orthodoxy. Reymond has created a false scenario in his comments on the Assembly's discussions concerning the 39 Articles. Further, Calvin came down on the side of Nicene orthodoxy. His only concern was to free the teaching from scholastic questions.


----------



## MW

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).



Please see Francis Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, pp. 292-302, where he answers in the affirmative that the Son of God was begotten of the Father from eternity. Also, Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 120-123.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please see Francis Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, pp. 292-302, where he answers in the affirmative that the Son of God was begotten of the Father from eternity. Also, Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 120-123.
Click to expand...


 Also see additional resources which I listed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/274811-post4.html


----------



## ADKing

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is unhelpful. Every Westminster divine who commented on eternal generation did so in terms of Nicene orthodoxy. Reymond has created a false scenario in his comments on the Assembly's discussions concerning the 39 Articles. Further, Calvin came down on the side of Nicene orthodoxy. His only concern was to free the teaching from scholastic questions.
Click to expand...


Reymond's argument is one from silence. Others have shown that his reading of Calvin does not take into account that Calvin did support Nicea. Beyond that, notice that Reymond does not produce any citations from original sources of Westminster divines. He siimply speculates that because the paragraph in WCF 2 is abriviated it is meant to disagree with Nicea, even though it is essentially quoting from it!


----------



## Stephen

Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. He has never been acused of denying this before. The issue he raises is another matter entirely.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. He has never been acused of denying this before. The issue he raises is another matter entirely.



What precisely is it he believes then; its a couple of years since I read that section?


----------



## Davidius

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. He has never been acused of denying this before. The issue he raises is another matter entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What precisely is it he believes then; its a couple of years since I read that section?
Click to expand...


Here's a short explanation from Theopedia (I can't vouch for its accuracy):



> Reymond discusses his objections in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. [11] Departing from orthodox Reformed theology of the Trinity, Reformed theologian Robert Reymond is rather emphatic in his rejection of eternal generation and procession. *For Reymond, it is clear that Father, Son, and Spirit relate in covenant; he places distinctive emphasis on the equal self-existence of each person and the arbitrariness of the roles enacted by them. The subordination in their roles in salvation indicate nothing about what they are ontologically; and therefore, the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not a revelation of who God is, but rather only a revelation of God's purposes.*


----------



## ADKing

Davidius said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. He has never been acused of denying this before. The issue he raises is another matter entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What precisely is it he believes then; its a couple of years since I read that section?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a short explanation from Theopedia (I can't vouch for its accuracy):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond discusses his objections in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. [11] Departing from orthodox Reformed theology of the Trinity, Reformed theologian Robert Reymond is rather emphatic in his rejection of eternal generation and procession. *For Reymond, it is clear that Father, Son, and Spirit relate in covenant; he places distinctive emphasis on the equal self-existence of each person and the arbitrariness of the roles enacted by them. The subordination in their roles in salvation indicate nothing about what they are ontologically; and therefore, the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not a revelation of who God is, but rather only a revelation of God's purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If this is true (and notice its implications for our doctrine of revelation--God not revealing himself but his purposes) then in what meaningful way can we speak of the Son as being eternally Son?


----------



## Civbert

Stephen said:


> Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. He has never been acused of denying this before. The issue he raises is another matter entirely.


Agreed. He also does not deny that the Son of God was begotten of the Father.


> Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? And again: "I WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER, AND HE SHALL BE TO ME A SON"?
> (NKJV)


----------



## Civbert

Davidius said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a short explanation from Theopedia (I can't vouch for its accuracy):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond discusses his objections in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. [11] Departing from orthodox Reformed theology of the Trinity, Reformed theologian Robert Reymond is rather emphatic in his rejection of eternal generation and procession. *For Reymond, it is clear that Father, Son, and Spirit relate in covenant; he places distinctive emphasis on the equal self-existence of each person and the arbitrariness of the roles enacted by them. The subordination in their roles in salvation indicate nothing about what they are ontologically; and therefore, the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not a revelation of who God is, but rather only a revelation of God's purposes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be better to have a quote of Dr. Reymond.
Click to expand...


----------



## Davidius

ADKing said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What precisely is it he believes then; its a couple of years since I read that section?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a short explanation from Theopedia (I can't vouch for its accuracy):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reymond discusses his objections in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. [11] Departing from orthodox Reformed theology of the Trinity, Reformed theologian Robert Reymond is rather emphatic in his rejection of eternal generation and procession. *For Reymond, it is clear that Father, Son, and Spirit relate in covenant; he places distinctive emphasis on the equal self-existence of each person and the arbitrariness of the roles enacted by them. The subordination in their roles in salvation indicate nothing about what they are ontologically; and therefore, the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is not a revelation of who God is, but rather only a revelation of God's purposes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true (and notice its implications for our doctrine of revelation--God not revealing himself but his purposes) then in what meaningful way can we speak of the Son as being eternally Son?
Click to expand...


According to the definition given by Theopedia, I'm assuming that the Son's eternal sonship would be based on the 2nd person's arbitrary assumption of a certain role. I gather this from the statement's discussion of the names given to the three persons of the Trinity being a revelation of purpose instead of a revelation of ontology.


----------



## Beoga

Well after following this thread and reading the section in Reymond's Systematic Theology, I have come to the conclusion that before I was ignorant of this subject and now I feel hopelessly lost.


----------



## Civbert

Beoga said:


> Well after following this thread and reading the section in Reymond's Systematic Theology, I have come to the conclusion that before I was ignorant of this subject and now I feel hopelessly lost.



I'm on my second reading, and I'm starting to understand it better (and also some of the comments made). So have heart, if I can increase my understanding, you can too. When some reading seem a bit inscrutable, I think it helps to push though it quickly to the end, and then go back and read it more carefully. Sometime having an idea where the author is going, helps you understand the path he took.  Also, reading other authors have written on the subject helps. 

But many of the comments on this and related threads are from people who are familiar with the arguments involved, and they don't really work them out in their posts. They kind of shortcut the process - getting to the the "heart" of he matter - and leaving it up to us to figure it out. Getting a clear explanation on a web-board is like pulling teeth sometimes.


----------



## py3ak

I found Berkhof very helpful on this topic. In his _Systematic Theology_, pp.93,94.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Take heart. We confess:

WCF Chapter I


> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Take heart. We confess:
> 
> WCF Chapter I
> 
> 
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all....
Click to expand...


I am glad that is there...the longer I live the more I find myself saying "I don't know" when it comes to theological questions.


----------



## Civbert

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take heart. We confess:
> 
> WCF Chapter I
> 
> 
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad that is there...the longer I live the more I find myself saying "I don't know" when it comes to theological questions.
Click to expand...

 Yes, but I blame the theologians even more! They can take a seemingly clear Scripture text, and start expounding and pounding and extrapolating on it until it seems that red means dog and up is down. Suddenly the Scripture that the theologian is supposed to make clear, doesn't seem to make any sense anymore. It often takes more metal effort to translate the theologians than it does the Scripture. 

As my daughter Rosa would say -* urgness!*


----------



## Stephen

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> Blessings.




I agree, brother that this thread is creating more confusion than is necessary. All Robert Reymond has tried to do is state that each person of the trinity is fully and equally God, and that the Son does not derive His divinity from the Father, for the Son has always been God from the beginning. Some say that he is outside of orthodoxy, which is not the case. I sat under his teaching for two years and never once was an issue raised about his orthodoxy. If people are confused over the issue it is because they have not heard Reymond's arguement. I would *not* recommend you go to the website to search out this issue or you will become confused. Read Reymond's interaction with this issue and then consult other systematic theologians on this. You will find that Reymond is arguing for a clear and Biblical view of the trinity. You have to be very cautious about using links and websites to study theology, because it is often not researched well.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

py3ak said:


> I found Berkhof very helpful on this topic. In his _Systematic Theology_, pp.93,94.





VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Please see Francis Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, pp. 292-302, where he answers in the affirmative that the Son of God was begotten of the Father from eternity. Also, Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 120-123.



 Also see additional resources which I listed here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/274811-post4.html[/QUOTE]



Civbert said:


> Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.





Stephen said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> Blessings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, brother that this thread is creating more confusion than is necessary. All Robert Reymond has tried to do is state that each person of the trinity is fully and equally God, and that the Son does not derive His divinity from the Father, for the Son has always been God from the beginning. Some say that he is outside of orthodoxy, which is not the case. I sat under his teaching for two years and never once was an issue raised about his orthodoxy. If people are confused over the issue it is because they have not heard Reymond's arguement. I would *not* recommend you go to the website to search out this issue or you will become confused. Read Reymond's interaction with this issue and then consult other systematic theologians on this. You will find that Reymond is arguing for a clear and Biblical view of the trinity. You have to be very cautious about using links and websites to study theology, because it is often not researched well.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the replies and links, brothers. I haven't had time to sit down and do any in-depth study yet. Been caring for a son with pneumonia, then a wife with the flu, then I got the flu.... Hopefully, I'll have time to give this proper consideration soon.

Also, if I missed anyone else who contributed a link or explanation, I apologize.

Thank you all for your input and continued prayers as I sort through this.

I joined the PB in hopes of polishing my apologetics skills and let me assure you all that the caliber of discussion and exposition practiced here is causing me to do just that. Though I've learned that the surface was much rougher than I had thought initially. But with the Lord's help and your patience, I'm getting there.


----------



## Stephen

James, the link on the Puritan Board to the Eternal Generation of the Son has links to the eternal Sonship of Christ, which are two different issues. Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ, which some claim that he does. The link entitled *Westminster's Trinitarianism *by Robert Reymond is his defense of his position and it is on the Knox website. I think you will find it helpful. We owe the man the curteousy of hearing his position.


----------



## Civbert

Stephen said:


> James, the link on the Puritan Board to the Eternal Generation of the Son has links to the eternal Sonship of Christ, which are two different issues. Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ, which some claim that he does. The link entitled *Westminster's Trinitarianism *by Robert Reymond is his defense of his position and it is on the Knox website. I think you will find it helpful. We owe the man the curteousy of hearing his position.


Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Stephen said:


> I agree, brother that this thread is creating more confusion than is necessary. All Robert Reymond has tried to do is state that each person of the trinity is fully and equally God, and that the Son does not derive His divinity from the Father, for the Son has always been God from the beginning. *Some say that he is outside of orthodoxy*, which is not the case. I sat under his teaching for two years and never once was an issue raised about his orthodoxy. If people are confused over the issue it is because they have not heard Reymond's arguement. I would *not* recommend you go to the website to search out this issue or you will become confused. Read Reymond's interaction with this issue and then consult other systematic theologians on this. You will find that Reymond is arguing for a clear and Biblical view of the trinity. You have to be very cautious about using links and websites to study theology, because it is often not researched well.





Stephen said:


> James, *the link on the Puritan Board to the Eternal Generation of the Son* has links to the eternal Sonship of Christ, which are two different issues. Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ, which some claim that he does. The link entitled *Westminster's Trinitarianism *by Robert Reymond is his defense of his position and it is on the Knox website. I think you will find it helpful. We owe the man the curteousy of hearing his position.



Note the bolded area _is_ the point at which Reymond denies the orthodox position on the Trinity. Nobody in my estimation has obscured what the issue is. I don't know why you are obfuscating this fact.



> III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:38 the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; *the Son is eternally begotten of the Father*;39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40





> Article 10: That Jesus Christ is true and eternal God.
> We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only begotten Son of God, *begotten from eternity*, not made nor created (for then he should be a creature), but co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, the express image of his person, and the brightness of his glory, equal unto him in all things.


Does Reymond deny this? Yes or no.

If so then there has been absolutely no obscuring of the issue to state that he denies a piece of orthodoxy. Now you may disagree about the seriousness of that departure but the orthodox view is that the eternal generation of the Son is inexorably related to the nature of His Sonship.


----------



## Davidius

I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now. 

Also, where can I find the best discussion of what it actually means to be "eternally begotten and/or generated"? To say "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" is not helpful to me unless I understand what it means (same goes for "3 persons/1 substance").


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, the link on the Puritan Board to the Eternal Generation of the Son has links to the eternal Sonship of Christ, which are two different issues. Reymond does not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ, which some claim that he does. The link entitled *Westminster's Trinitarianism *by Robert Reymond is his defense of his position and it is on the Knox website. I think you will find it helpful. We owe the man the curteousy of hearing his position.
> 
> 
> 
> Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.
Click to expand...


I guess this constitutes an argument.



ADKing said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is unhelpful. Every Westminster divine who commented on eternal generation did so in terms of Nicene orthodoxy. Reymond has created a false scenario in his comments on the Assembly's discussions concerning the 39 Articles. Further, Calvin came down on the side of Nicene orthodoxy. His only concern was to free the teaching from scholastic questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reymond's argument is one from silence. Others have shown that his reading of Calvin does not take into account that Calvin did support Nicea. Beyond that, notice that Reymond does not produce any citations from original sources of Westminster divines. He siimply speculates that because the paragraph in WCF 2 is abriviated it is meant to disagree with Nicea, even though it is essentially quoting from it!
Click to expand...



So twice now you throw the link up and neither of you interact with this contention. Reymond says so and that settles the fact that, due to brevity in the WCF, the framers were departing from orthodoxy. You're agreeing with simply by the force of assertion?

If you're going to stick that link up twice and make the assertion twice then you need to back it up with primary source material, which Reymond does not provide.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Davidius said:


> I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now.
> 
> Also, where can I find the best discussion of what it actually means to be "eternally begotten and/or generated"? To say "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" is not helpful to me unless I understand what it means (same goes for "3 persons/1 substance").


Perhaps you didn't see this...



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am very  over all this. Can someone please point me to a source for the reformed position on this matter? A resource outside the PB? (I think that it might be the thread format that is adding to my confusion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please see Francis Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, pp. 292-302, where he answers in the affirmative that the Son of God was begotten of the Father from eternity. Also, Heinrich Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 120-123.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also see additional resources which I listed here:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/274811-post4.html
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

Davidius said:


> I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now.



That _is_ the question. The idea is that Christ is both "begotten" and "eternal". Begotten seems to imply a temporal state - that there was a time before Jesus. There was a time before the incarnation. So does begotten refer only to the incarnation of Christ? Hmmmm. 

What we know is Scripture says specifically that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. It doesn't say "eternally begotten" and certainly not "eternally generated". We don't know is exactly what "begotten" means. The word in Greek is monogenēs. It's the same word that is used to describe an only child. But Scripture also says "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU." Heb 5:5 But most verses simply say "only begotten" (no time reference) and specifically the Greek monogenēs.



Davidius said:


> Also, where can I find the best discussion of what it actually means to be "eternally begotten and/or generated"? To say "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" is not helpful to me unless I understand what it means (same goes for "3 persons/1 substance").



I agree. I've been reading Gordon Clark's "The Trinity" and will read Hodge next.


----------



## Civbert

Civbert said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That _is_ the question. The idea is that Christ is both "begotten" and "eternal". Begotten seems to imply a temporal state - that there was a time before Jesus. There was a time before the incarnation. So does begotten refer only to the incarnation of Christ? Hmmmm.
> 
> What we know is Scripture says specifically that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. It doesn't say "eternally begotten" and certainly not "eternally generated". We don't know is exactly what "begotten" means. The word in Greek is monogenēs. It's the same word that is used to describe an only child. But Scripture also says "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU." Heb 5:5 But most verses simply say "only begotten" (no time reference) and specifically the Greek monogenēs.
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, where can I find the best discussion of what it actually means to be "eternally begotten and/or generated"? To say "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" is not helpful to me unless I understand what it means (same goes for "3 persons/1 substance").
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I've been reading Gordon Clark's "The Trinity" and will read Hodge next.
Click to expand...


I'm told my post constitutes an argument against "eternal generation".. I want to be clear that I am not. Pointing out that Scripture does not say "eternal generation" is no different than pointing out that Scripture does not say "Trinity". It's just a fact. It's not an argument. When someone asks me where the Bible uses the word Trinity, I answer it doesn't. "Trinity" is a term used to describe the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead. 

"Eternal generation" is a term used to account for the "begotten" of Christ, and that he is also "eternal". The point is to counter the idea that Christ was made. Ergo, "begotten, not made".


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> If you're going to stick that link up twice and make the assertion twice then you need to back it up with primary source material, which Reymond does not provide.



Each of the following includes the Greek monogenēs. Usually translated "only" in the ESV, but in the NKJV it is "only begotten".
[bible]Joh_1:14[/bible]
[bible]Joh_1:18[/bible]
[bible]Joh_3:16[/bible]
[bible]Joh_3:18[/bible]
[bible]1Jo_4:9[/bible]


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That _is_ the question. The idea is that Christ is both "begotten" and "eternal". Begotten seems to imply a temporal state - that there was a time before Jesus. There was a time before the incarnation. So does begotten refer only to the incarnation of Christ? Hmmmm.
> 
> What we know is Scripture says specifically that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. It doesn't say "eternally begotten" and certainly not "eternally generated". We don't know is exactly what "begotten" means. The word in Greek is monogenēs. It's the same word that is used to describe an only child. But Scripture also says "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU." Heb 5:5 But most verses simply say "only begotten" (no time reference) and specifically the Greek monogenēs.
Click to expand...


The very same concerns over "eternal" qualifying "begotten" might also be raised over "eternal" qualifying "Son." If you use a temporal model to explain terms which are applied to the eternal God you are going to run into intellectual trouble every time. The very fact that "eternal" is used to qualify "begotten" means that the begetting cannot be construed as a temporal action. It simply conveys an eternal relation.

Secondly, the "begetting" cannot refer to the incarnation -- at least not exclusively so -- because the Scripture specifically says that it is the only begotten Son who was "sent" by the Father, John 3:16. If so, he enjoyed the relation of begotten Son before the act of sending, which means it cannot be a relation he obtained by the act of sending.

Thirdly, Robert Reymond denies the language you are using, and adopts the recent idea that monogenes means "unique" or "one of a kind" instead of "begotten." Hence your line of enquiry does nothing to substantiate Reymond's claims.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to stick that link up twice and make the assertion twice then you need to back it up with primary source material, which Reymond does not provide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each of the following includes the Greek monogenēs. Usually translated "only" in the ESV, but in the NKJV it is "only begotten".
> [bible]Joh_1:14[/bible]
> [bible]Joh_1:18[/bible]
> [bible]Joh_3:16[/bible]
> [bible]Joh_3:18[/bible]
> [bible]1Jo_4:9[/bible]
Click to expand...


More specifically, Anthony, Reymond is charged with being sloppy in his claim that the WCF framers were retreating from a full-orbed Nicence orthodoxy on the subject. He simply asserts that the brevity of the Chapter is an indication of this. The primary source material I'm referring to is documentation that any of the framers questioned the Nicene formulation or that they intended to do so with the brevity of their statement.


----------



## shackleton

Newer translations, NIV, NRSV etc. don't use "begotten" because it led to the confusion that there was a time when Christ did not exist. 
beget- begotten - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I know in oneness theology it was assumed that begot referred to the _man_ Jesus, it was the time when the _man_ began to exist and did not refer to when the Son of God began to exist (because they were all the Father). There was a time when the _man_ Jesus did not exist, there was not a _man_ who was in existence from all eternity because that is what that would have to mean. God took on flesh 2000 years ago and will remain a man for all eternity from that point on. There was a definite distinction between God and the man Jesus and these verses were understood in this light. 

generate- bring into existence generate - Definitions from Dictionary.com


----------



## Semper Fidelis

*Turretin on the Eternal Generation of the Son*

Turretin on the eternal generation of the son {note: this took a LOT of work to format into bbcode so I hope you guys benefit from this}:

*TWENTY-NINTH QUESTION *- _Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm._

This question will demonstrate his personal distinction from him, his ineffable and eternal generation.
The question is whether he was begotten of God from eternity, and whether he may be called Son on account of the secret and ineffable generation from the Father. This we affirm.
Something must be premised concerning its nature, not that it can be conceived or explained by us; but only that it may be distinguished from human generation and be explained negatively rather than positively.
This wonderful generation is rightly expressed as a communication of essence from the Father (by which the Son possesses indivisibly the same essence with him and is made perfectly like him).
whatever may be the analogy between natural and human generations, and the supernatural and divine, still the latter is not be measured by the former
in physical generation, the principle is not only active, but also passive and material; but in the divine it is only active
in the former, a communication is made not of the whole essence, but only of a part which falls and is alienated from the begetter - the produced is not only distinct but also separate from the begetter
in the latter, the same numerical essence is communicated without decision and alienation - the begetter generates in himself and not out of himself


This generation was made
without time; not in time, but from eternity - therefore not priority or posteriority of duration can be observed here, although there may be priority of order
without place because the Father did not beget out of himself
without any passion or change
hence what has place in transient and and physical and material generation ought not to be transferred to the hyperphysical, immanent and divine

A person is properly said to generate a person because actions belong to self-existence; but not an essence to generate an essence because what begets and is begotten is necessarily multiplied.
The Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten, can be said in a sound sense: with respect to generation considered in itself because the works of the Trinity inwards are eternal and unceasing.
This generation may be proved:
from the remarkable oracle (Psa. 2:7)
to this Son is ascribed a generation, not temporal and physical, but hyperphysical and eternal - such as can belong to him who is the eternal Son of an eternal Father and so true God with him
unless Christ has been the true and eternal Son of God, begotten by him from eternity, he never could have been appointed Mediator and obtain a universal kingdom

the same thing is gathered from the passage in which Wisdom is introduced speaking thus (Prov. 8:22-30)
here Wisdom is put in the abstract, not qualitatively, but personally
that this is none other than the Son of God, is collected not only from the name itself (Luke 7:35; 1 Cor. 1:24), but also from the attributes ascribed to this Wisdom
the word _chvllthy_ ought not to be translated "I was created" but "I was begotten"

it may be proved from Micah 5:2
although the going forth has a broader extension than generation, still it cannot be denied that generation is a going forth
the going forth is said to be from the beginning, i.e., from eternity

it may be proved from the filiation of Christ, which ought necessarily to imply a communication of essence from the Father in the most perfect manner
if he were called Son only on account of a gracious communication of existence and glory he could not be styled either the one or the only begotten Son of God
therefore there must be some other mode of filiation proper and singular to him
if Christ has many brethren (Rom. 8:29), he does not cease to be the only begotten by way of eminence because the generation is evidently dissimilar and totally different in kind by a communication of the essence itself
Christ is said to be "the own Son of the Father" as it is opposed to an adopted and metaphorical son

he is the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15) and "the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3)
Christ is said to be not only like to, but also equal with the Father
Christ cannot be called the Son of the living God with respect to unction and office, nor is Christ said to be the Son of God because he was the Messiah; on the contrary, he is recognized as the Messiah because he is the Son of God
he could not have exhibited to us by incarnation the glory of God and the mark of his person unless he had been such before by an eternal generation


Christ is called the "first-born" in diverse ways:
by reason of his temporal nativity when he is called "the first-born" of Mary
by reason of his resurrection as "the first-born from the dead" (Col. 1:18) because
he first arose, not so much by priority of time as of causality (because he arose by his own power (John 2:19)
he arose to immortal life, never again to die

by reason of authority and dominion - because all the prerogatives of primogenitureship a kingdom properly belongs to him
by reason of his eternal generation when he is called the "first begotten of God" (Heb. 1:6)
Christ is called the firstborn of every creature, not because he is the first of creatures, but because he was begotten before creatures
we must not understand here a ranking with creatures, but a going before and a preexistence, for if he is before every creature, he ought not to be reckoned among creatures and so must be eternal


The Father begat the Son as neither now existing because he would be supposed to have been already before, nor as yet not existing, but coexisting.
hence the Son was not properly before generation, not did he being to be through generation, but always emanated from the Father by an eternal and internal act
by generation the divine essence is communicated to the begotten, not that it may exist, but subsist

The Father is said to have begotten the Son necessarily and voluntarily;
necessarily because he begat by nature, as he is God by nature
voluntarily because he begat not by coaction, but freely

Although the Son may be said to be begotten by the Father, it does not follow that the Son is the Son of himself because the essence does not generate an essence, but a person.
That which is most perfect does not generate a thing differing from itself essentially, but a person differing from itself personally.
When the Son is said to be one God with the Father and yet to be a distinct person from him, there is no contradiction.
Although believers may be said "to be begotten" or "to be born of God" on account of a similarity of virtues (and not by a communication of essence), it does not follow that it can be understood in the same sense of Christ.
The miraculous conception of Christ can be an argument _a posteriori_ by which his eternal filiation is known, but is not immediately its cause _a priori_.
The Son of God is not called Christ because he was sanctified by the Father (John 10:36) - he was sanctified because he was the Son.
This hyperphysical generation is altogether different from physical and finite generation.
To no purpose do the Scholastics weary themselves in investigating and explaining the mode of this generation, since it is not only ineffable, but also incomprehensible to the angels themselves.
The similitudes usually employed to explain this mystery can in some measure serve to illustrate this mystery. But they cannot set forth a full and accurate determination fo the mode of this generation. Hence we should not anxiously busy our thoughts with defining or even searching into the mode, but leave it to God who alone most perfectly knows himself.


----------



## MW

See also Beza's Propositions and Principles of Divinity, which contains heads of divinity taught in the University of Geneva and defended by the students. It is partially available online here:

Propositions and Principles of Divinitie, Propounded and Disputed in the University of Geneva.

Here is the relevant text:



> 3. God the Father after an unspeakable manner of generation {6} begat his only Son, by communicating his whole essence with him, the which manner of begetting, is shadowed out by a kind of similitude, where the son is in the holy scripture, named the Wisdom, the Power, the Image [Col. 1.15], the brightness, and the engraven form of his person. [Heb. 1.3.]
> 
> 4. And after this sort we are to conceive, (but not curiously to scan) the similitudes, of the fountain & the stream that issueth from it: of the Sun and Sunbeams of the light, that proceedeth from light, of the water & the vapors that arise out of it, of the tree and the branches, of the mind and the speech, that is inwardly conceived, of the seed and the bud, and to be brief, of all such similitudes, as the Fathers have brought, to manifest in some measure, though not perfectly to lay open this mystery: Which they accounted a matter to be reverenced & adored, & not curiously and profanely to be sifted and waded into.
> 
> 5. And although this divine manner of begetting, doth neither cut into parts, nor multiply the essence of the Deity, which Deity, is not a thing that only may be conceived in thought, having no other being or existence, as are the general kinds and sorts of things created, but is indeed a most single, and a most pure infinite self-being: yet doth it multiply the persons, but so, as it doth in no wise sever the one of them from the other.
> 
> 6. The Father therefore is another person in number than the Son, and in like sort, the Son is another person, than the Father: and yet is the Deity neither divided, nor multiplied, when the Son is said to be God of God. And even as in substance he is the one and the selfsame with the Father, so is he in his person so distinguished from the Father, that he is, and remaineth in him still.
> 
> 7. The Father and the Son then, are enupostatoi, that is, the one of them in the other, or neither of them severed from the other by any distance of place: Yet is the Son more properly said to be in the father, than the father in the son, by reason of the dignity as it were, of the Fatherhood.
> 
> Hence also it is, that the Son personally distinguished from the Father, is in many places of the Scripture called God.
> 
> 8. Out of these things it appeareth, what we are to believe concerning the person of the Son: to wit, that in regard of his substance absolutely considered, he is that one only true God, unto whom do agree whatsoever may be attributed to divine substance considered in itself, but in regard of the manner of his being, that is, in respect that he is the Son, or as far as he is personally considered, then we are to believe, that he is not of himself, but of the Father, yet coeternal and coessential with the Father.
> 
> 9. We do condemn therefore the Tritheists, by whom, not only the persons (which also we grant) are numbered, but even the substance of the Godhead, (wherein also they place an inequality) multiplied.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> The very same concerns over "eternal" qualifying "begotten" might also be raised over "eternal" qualifying "Son." If you use a temporal model to explain terms which are applied to the eternal God you are going to run into intellectual trouble every time.


 I agree. But I don't know if qualifying is quite right. Is it qualifying (as in modifying the meaning of) generation, or is it predicating both eternal and generation to the Son - without qualification.




armourbearer said:


> The very fact that "eternal" is used to qualify "begotten" means that the begetting cannot be construed as a temporal action. It simply conveys an eternal relation.


 Probably. But it could mean Christ is both eternal and begotten. 



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, the "begetting" cannot refer to the incarnation -- at least not exclusively so -- because the Scripture specifically says that it is the only begotten Son who was "sent" by the Father, John 3:16. If so, he enjoyed the relation of begotten Son before the act of sending, which means it cannot be a relation he obtained; by the act of sending.


 I find no translation that says in John 3:16 or anywhere else that He "sent" (pwmpo) his only begotten Son. The Scripture says He "gave" (didomee) his only begotten Son. These are not synonymous. And the "gave" refers to the sacrifice of the incarnate Son on the cross. It was the death of Christ that purchases our salvation - not the birth. 



armourbearer said:


> Thirdly, Robert Reymond denies the language you are using, and adopts the recent idea that monogenes means "unique" or "one of a kind" instead of "begotten." Hence your line of enquiry does nothing to substantiate Reymond's claims.


 This is false. He does not deny monogenēs means begotten. What monogenēs does not mean - and no where in the Scripture is it so translated -_ eternally_ begotten And monogenēs is also used to describe only children in other places in Scripture. None of these children are "eternally generated". 

So, just like trinity, the phrase "eternal generation" is not directly from Scripture. 

Now monogenēs may indeed mean "the only one of the same kind" denoting the same deity of Christ to the Father. Or it could mean the "only generated." The word genus certainly means kind - so this is not a stretch. And mono certainly means one or only. 

This is not a "recent" idea. We are speaking about an ancient word translated "only begotten" which in every other case in Scripture referred to an only child or only off-spring. But then one does not create a child. A child is also "begotten". It did not make my daughter. 

There is no question that Christ has always existed. But the phrase only begotten seems to refer to the incarnation of the Son. God made flesh. And the only God made flesh, the Son, who was always and is evermore. 

However, if only begotten refers to the incarnation, I don't see that that would undermine the doctrine of eternal generation.

Again, I am not arguing against the doctrine of eternal generation. Not that I fully understand it either. But I disagree the monogenēs means "eternally begotten". Probably Rev. Winzer doesn't either.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, the "begetting" cannot refer to the incarnation -- at least not exclusively so -- because the Scripture specifically says that it is the only begotten Son who was "sent" by the Father, John 3:16. If so, he enjoyed the relation of begotten Son before the act of sending, which means it cannot be a relation he obtained; by the act of sending.
> 
> 
> 
> I find no translation that says in John 3:16 or anywhere else that He "sent" (pwmpo) his only begotten Son. The Scripture says He "gave" (didomee) his only begotten Son. These are not synonymous. And the "gave" refers to the sacrifice of the incarnate Son on the cross. It was the death of Christ that purchases our salvation - not the birth.
Click to expand...


Now you are clasping at straws. Please read verse 17, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world..." This giving of the Son has reference to the incarnation, not the passion. We are not Romanists for whom the passion is everything, but Protestants who maintain Christ was sin-bearer from the moment He was incarnate.



Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, Robert Reymond denies the language you are using, and adopts the recent idea that monogenes means "unique" or "one of a kind" instead of "begotten." Hence your line of enquiry does nothing to substantiate Reymond's claims.
> 
> 
> 
> This is false. He does not deny monogenēs means begotten.
Click to expand...


On p. 325 he says "there is a general consensus among scholars today that monogenes does not mean 'only begotten,' alluding to some form of generation, but rather 'one and only' or 'only one of a kind' or 'unique.'" He then quotes Warfield in substantiation of this opinion, and offers no further comment in the way of qualifying it.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, the "begetting" cannot refer to the incarnation -- at least not exclusively so -- because the Scripture specifically says that it is the only begotten Son who was "sent" by the Father, John 3:16. If so, he enjoyed the relation of begotten Son before the act of sending, which means it cannot be a relation he obtained; by the act of sending.
> 
> 
> 
> I find no translation that says in John 3:16 or anywhere else that He "sent" (pwmpo) his only begotten Son. The Scripture says He "gave" (didomee) his only begotten Son. These are not synonymous. And the "gave" refers to the sacrifice of the incarnate Son on the cross. It was the death of Christ that purchases our salvation - not the birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are clasping at straws. Please read verse 17, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world..." This giving of the Son has reference to the incarnation, not the passion. We are not Romanists for whom the passion is everything, but Protestants who maintain Christ was sin-bearer from the moment He was incarnate.
> 
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, Robert Reymond denies the language you are using, and adopts the recent idea that monogenes means "unique" or "one of a kind" instead of "begotten." Hence your line of enquiry does nothing to substantiate Reymond's claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is false. He does not deny monogenēs means begotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On p. 325 he says "there is a general consensus among scholars today that monogenes does not mean 'only begotten,' alluding to some form of generation, but rather 'one and only' or 'only one of a kind' or 'unique.'" He then quotes Warfield in substantiation of this opinion, and offers no further comment in the way of qualifying it.
Click to expand...


Yes. Very good point Matthew!

I also find it interesting that new scholars do not see the use of monogenes in Aeschylus (yes, it is there) as meaning "only begotten" not "one and only" as of any weight with respect to what the Greek means.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I also find it interesting that new scholars do not see the use of monogenes in Aeschylus (yes, it is there) as meaning "only begotten" not "one and only" as of any weight with respect to what the Greek means.



That's right; I'd forgotten about studies in the secular use of the word. But it's also significant that they can't account for why Greek speaking fathers understood it this way.

For a detailed analysis from an exegetical point of view, Geerhardus Vos' Self-Disclosure of Jesus, pp. 215ff. is satisfactory. He weighs up both sides of the argument, and shows that monogenes can only be confined to a temporal state because that is the perspective of the writer, and that it must refer to an eternal state in order for the various statements of the apsotle John to have their proper force.

On p. 221 Vos writes, "according to John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9, the sending of the Son into the world is a sending of the Monogenes. Therefore, it may be argued, Christ is Monogenes apart from and previous to His mission into the world. This is certainly the only natural interpretation... The idea that God _sent_ His Son, that He _gave_ His only begotten Son, is robbed of its force if the Monogenes-filial character is regarded as beginning with the incarnation."


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting that new scholars do not see the use of monogenes in Aeschylus (yes, it is there) as meaning "only begotten" not "one and only" as of any weight with respect to what the Greek means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right; I'd forgotten about studies in the secular use of the word. But it's also significant that they can't account for why Greek speaking fathers understood it this way.
> 
> For a detailed analysis from an exegetical point of view, Geerhardus Vos' Self-Disclosure of Jesus, pp. 215ff. is satisfactory. He weighs up both sides of the argument, and shows that monogenes can only be confined to a temporal state because that is the perspective of the writer, and that it must refer to an eternal state in order for the various statements of the apsotle John to have their proper force.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have made that point before to others - that Greek speaking fathers would be a much better place to understand a Greek word than men 2000 years removed.


----------



## shackleton

*This is something that helped me*

Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology on the doctrine of the Trinity

The Persons of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But why do the persons of the Trinity take these different roles in relating to creation? Was it accidental or arbitrary? Could God the Father have come instead of God the Son to die for our sins? Could the Holy Spirit have sent God the Father to die for our sins, and then sent God the Son to apply redemption to us? 
No, it does not seem that these things could have happened, for the role of commanding, directing, and sending is appropriate to the position of the Father, after whom all human fatherhood is patterned (Eph. 3:14-15). And the role of obeying, going as the Father sends, and revealing God to us is appropriate to the role of the Son, who is also called the Word of God (cf. John 1:1-5, 14, 18; 17:4; Phil. 2:5-11). These roles could not have been reversed or the Father would have ceased to be the Father and the Son would have ceased to be the Son. And by analogy from that relationship, we may conclude that the role of the Holy Spirit is similarly one that was appropriate to the relationship he had with the Father and the Son before the world was created. 
Second, before the Son came to earth, and even before the world was created, for all eternity the Father has been the Father, the Son has been the Son, and the Holy Spirit has been the Holy Spirit. These relationships are eternal, not something that occurred only in time. We may conclude this first from the unchangeableness of God (see chapter 11): if God now exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then he has always existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We may also conclude that the relationships are eternal from other verses in Scripture that speak of the relationships the members of the Trinity had to one another before the creation of the world. For instance, when Scripture speaks of God’s work of election (see chapter 32) before the creation of the world, it speaks of the Father choosing us “in” the Son: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:3-4). The initiatory act of choosing is attributed to God the Father, who regards us as united to Christ or “in Christ” before we ever existed. Similarly, of God the Father, it is said that “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). We also read of the “foreknowledge of God the Father” in distinction from particular functions of the other two members of the Trinity (1 Peter 1:2 NASB; cf. 1:20). Even the fact that the Father “gave his only Son” (John 3:16) and “sent the Son into the world” (John 3:17) indicate that there was a Father-Son relationship before Christ came into the world. The Son did not become the Son when the Father sent him into the world. Rather, the great love of God is shown in the fact that the one who was always Father gave the one who was always his only Son: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...” (John 3:16). “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4). 
When Scripture speaks of creation, once again it speaks of the Father creating through the Son, indicating a relationship prior to when creation began (see John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; also Prov. 8:22-31). But nowhere does it say that the Son or Holy Spirit created through the Father. These passages again imply that there was a relationship of Father (as originator) and Son (as active agent) before creation, and that this relationship made it appropriate for the different persons of the Trinity to fulfill the roles they actually did fulfill. 
Therefore, the different functions that we see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit performing are simply outworkings of an eternal relationship between the three persons, one that has always existed and will exist for eternity. God has always existed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These distinctions are essential to the very nature of God himself, and they could not be otherwise. 
Finally, it may be said that there are no differences in deity, attributes, or essential nature between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God and has all the attributes of God. The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person. 
This truth about the Trinity has sometimes been summarized in the phrase “ontological equality but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means “being.” Another way of expressing this more simply would be to say “equal in being but subordinate in role.” Both parts of this phrase are necessary to a true doctrine of the Trinity: If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed. 
This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox expressions), at least since Nicea (A.D. 325). So Charles Hodge says: 

The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority....The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistence and operation.... 
The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit...and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal. 

Similarly, A.H. Strong says: 

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation.... 
The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority....We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.

only begotten: A mistranslation of the Greek word monogenh\v (from monogenh/v (from G3666, John 3:16, et al), which actually means “unique” or “one-of-a-kind.” The Arians used this word to deny Christ’s deity, but the rest of the church understood it to mean that the Son eternally related as a son to the Father. (14C.2.a)


----------



## shackleton

*This also helped*

THE CHALCEDONIAN CREED (A.D. 451) 

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


----------



## k.seymore

Forgive me if someone already posted this (I skimmed through this thread pretty quickly). Recently I read Calvin's understanding of "this day I have begotten thee" in Psalm 2. Elsewhere Calvin shows that he holds to eternal generation in some sense (for instance, he speaks of the "Speech of God" being begotten of God in John 1), but he doesn't think that is what Psalm 2 is talking about:

"'Thou art my Son.' David, indeed could with propriety be called the Son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels... When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken."

But as I said, Calvin does take John 1 as referring to Jesus as being "only begotten." On the other hand, as has been pointe out in this thread, I can see why it makes sense that the word may mean "unique" because of verses like Heb 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." It definitely seems like the word means unique at least here since it would be odd to call your second son your only begotten. It makes more sense, at the very least in this passage, that it means Abraham's unique child of promise. Anways, where was I going with this... oh yeah, even if the word might also mean "unique" in John 1 instead of "begotten", the concept of the Logos or Wisdom of God as coming from God like the Son of a Father is still there. It also seems natural to say this Wisdom is of God from eternity, and it seems like the phrase "eternal generation" describes this even if all the "only begotten" passeges turned out not to be referring to generation at all. I'm not saying they aren't, but I am saying it is not clear to me in some passages. For instance:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:16-17).

Does "God sent... his Son into the world" mean the incarnation or the beginning of his ministry after being annointed by the Spirit at baptism? Later in John Jesus tells his disciples the Spirit will come to them and he uses the same language to describe their minitry:

"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:16-18)

Lately I have just been assuming the wording in John 3 refers to both Jesus' incarnation and being sent on his mission in time... John does, in the same passage in John 3, use wording which can be taken two ways (born again/born from above, wind moves/spirit moves). So although I have to admit it is not completely clear to me, my "working" interpretation for now is both. Which leaves it open for me whether "only begotten" is speaking of his annointing for him ministry at his baptism where God says to him, "You are my Son" or whether it refers to eternal generation, or my current thoughts: both. I don't know.


----------



## Civbert

shackleton said:


> generate- bring into existence generate - Definitions from Dictionary.com


 That is one reason why the doctrine of eternal generation is so confusing. To bring into existence is a neccessarily temporal process. "Eternal" then contradicts "generation".

However, I don't think the orignal meaning, or the meaning intended by the Nicean fathers, was "bring into existence". And if they meant an everlasting process, then this makes little more sense. A process is also a temporal event. And everlasting process must be circular in some sense. And we are taking about God, a being that is not restricted in time or space.


----------



## Civbert

SemperFideles said:


> Turretin on the eternal generation of the son {note: this took a LOT of work to format into bbcode so I hope you guys benefit from this}:
> 
> *TWENTY-NINTH QUESTION *- _Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm._
> 
> This question will demonstrate his personal distinction from him, his ineffable and eternal generation.
> The question is whether he was begotten of God from eternity, and whether he may be called Son on account of the secret and ineffable generation from the Father. This we affirm.





If it's ineffable there's no point in speaking about it. Ineffable means incapable of being expressed in words.

Turretin is going to take a while to digest. So far he seems much more obsure than Scripture. Phrases like "a generation made without time" seem inherently self-contradictory. How can somthing be made without time? While we are supposed to affirm that Chirst was not made, Turretin is saying Christ's was generated with a generation that is made without time. Now we have the generation of the generation of an eternal being. This is supposed to clear things up??!?


----------



## Stephen

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something I've found that should help: Westminster's Trinitarianism: Nicene or Reformed? by Robert L. Reymond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is unhelpful. Every Westminster divine who commented on eternal generation did so in terms of Nicene orthodoxy. Reymond has created a false scenario in his comments on the Assembly's discussions concerning the 39 Articles. Further, Calvin came down on the side of Nicene orthodoxy. His only concern was to free the teaching from scholastic questions.
Click to expand...


Explain your reasoning for finding this document unhelpful? How has he created a false scenario?


----------



## shackleton

G3439

μονογενής

monogenēs

Thayer Definition:

1) single of its kind, only

1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten Son of God

Part of Speech: adjective

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3441 and G1096

Citing in TDNT: 4:737, 606

Total KJV Occurrences: 16

only, 9

Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9

begotten, 6

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9

child, 1

Luke 9:38

As you can see sometimes it is translated as only. 

G3441

μόνος

monos

Thayer Definition:

1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

Part of Speech: adjective

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: probably from G3306

Total KJV Occurrences: 47

only, 24

Matt 4:10, Matt 12:4, Matt 17:8, Matt 24:36, Luke 4:8 (2), Luke 24:18, John 5:44, Rom 16:3-4 (2), Rom 16:27, 1 Cor 9:6, 1 Cor 14:36, Phil 4:15, Col 4:11, 1 Tim 1:17, 1 Tim 6:15-16 (2), 2 Tim 4:11, 2 John 1:1, Jude 1:4, Jude 1:25, Rev 15:4 (2)

alone, 21

Matt 4:4 (2), Matt 14:23, Matt 18:15, Mark 6:47, Luke 4:4, Luke 5:21, Luke 6:4, Luke 9:36, Luke 10:40, John 6:15, John 6:22, John 8:9, John 8:16, John 8:29, John 12:24, John 16:32 (2), Gal 6:3-4 (2), 1 Thess 3:1, Heb 9:7

themselves, 2

Mark 9:2, Luke 24:12

I tried to look up the word in the septuagint that is referred to in Hebrews 11:17 (Genesis 22:2) but the word from what I could tell just meant beloved son.


----------



## Stephen

Civbert said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turretin on the eternal generation of the son {note: this took a LOT of work to format into bbcode so I hope you guys benefit from this}:
> 
> *TWENTY-NINTH QUESTION *- _Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm._
> 
> This question will demonstrate his personal distinction from him, his ineffable and eternal generation.
> The question is whether he was begotten of God from eternity, and whether he may be called Son on account of the secret and ineffable generation from the Father. This we affirm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's ineffable there's no point in speaking about it. Ineffable means incapable of being expressed in words.
> 
> Turretin is going to take a while to digest. So far he seems much more obsure than Scripture. Phrases like "a generation made without time" seem inherently self-contradictory. How can somthing be made without time? While we are supposed to affirm that Chirst was not made, Turretin is saying Christ's was generated with a generation that is made without time. Now we have the generation of the generation of an eternal being. This is supposed to clear things up??!?
Click to expand...




Reymond does bring out the point that Turretin's exegesis in question 29 is more scholastic than Biblical. Turretin is extremely helpful in asserting a point but weak in Biblical argumentation. This is why it is helpful to have a number of systematic works like Turretin, Hodge, Reymond, Berkhoff, and others, because each one makes a helpful contribution.


----------



## Stephen

Civbert said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> generate- bring into existence generate - Definitions from Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> That is one reason why the doctrine of eternal generation is so confusing. To bring into existence is a neccessarily temporal process. "Eternal" then contradicts "generation".
> 
> However, I don't think the orignal meaning, or the meaning intended by the Nicean fathers, was "bring into existence". And if they meant an everlasting process, then this makes little more sense. A process is also a temporal event. And everlasting process must be circular in some sense. And we are taking about God, a being that is not restricted in time or space.
Click to expand...



This was what Reymond has argued all along. His only point was that the Nicene Fathers went beyond Scripture by saying that the Son's essence is eternally generated by the Father & the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. He never denies that Christ is the only begotten Son of God but is concerned that we do not go beyond Scripture in by using language that intimates that the Son's existence comes from the Father.


----------



## Stephen

k.seymore said:


> Forgive me if someone already posted this (I skimmed through this thread pretty quickly). Recently I read Calvin's understanding of "this day I have begotten thee" in Psalm 2. Elsewhere Calvin shows that he holds to eternal generation in some sense (for instance, he speaks of the "Speech of God" being begotten of God in John 1), but he doesn't think that is what Psalm 2 is talking about:
> 
> "'Thou art my Son.' David, indeed could with propriety be called the Son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels... When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken."
> 
> But as I said, Calvin does take John 1 as referring to Jesus as being "only begotten." On the other hand, as has been pointe out in this thread, I can see why it makes sense that the word may mean "unique" because of verses like Heb 11:17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." It definitely seems like the word means unique at least here since it would be odd to call your second son your only begotten. It makes more sense, at the very least in this passage, that it means Abraham's unique child of promise. Anways, where was I going with this... oh yeah, even if the word might also mean "unique" in John 1 instead of "begotten", the concept of the Logos or Wisdom of God as coming from God like the Son of a Father is still there. It also seems natural to say this Wisdom is of God from eternity, and it seems like the phrase "eternal generation" describes this even if all the "only begotten" passeges turned out not to be referring to generation at all. I'm not saying they aren't, but I am saying it is not clear to me in some passages. For instance:
> 
> "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:16-17).
> 
> Does "God sent... his Son into the world" mean the incarnation or the beginning of his ministry after being annointed by the Spirit at baptism? Later in John Jesus tells his disciples the Spirit will come to them and he uses the same language to describe their minitry:
> 
> "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:16-18)
> 
> Lately I have just been assuming the wording in John 3 refers to both Jesus' incarnation and being sent on his mission in time... John does, in the same passage in John 3, use wording which can be taken two ways (born again/born from above, wind moves/spirit moves). So although I have to admit it is not completely clear to me, my "working" interpretation for now is both. Which leaves it open for me whether "only begotten" is speaking of his annointing for him ministry at his baptism where God says to him, "You are my Son" or whether it refers to eternal generation, or my current thoughts: both. I don't know.



Christ coming into this world refers to His incarnation. Christ became man at His incarnation. Christ as the eternal Son of God existed before His incarnation, but took on humanity at His incarnation.


----------



## Stephen

In my mind some of the confusion in this particular discussion hinges on the definition of eternal generation of the Son. Perhaps someone could define this, because it has been used assuming that everyone understood its definition.


----------



## Stephen

shackleton said:


> THE CHALCEDONIAN CREED (A.D. 451)
> 
> We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.



Some would argue with the phrase, *Mother of God*. This is a raging debate by some.


----------



## Stephen

shackleton said:


> Newer translations, NIV, NRSV etc. don't use "begotten" because it led to the confusion that there was a time when Christ did not exist.
> beget- begotten - Definitions from Dictionary.com
> 
> I know in oneness theology it was assumed that begot referred to the _man_ Jesus, it was the time when the _man_ began to exist and did not refer to when the Son of God began to exist (because they were all the Father). There was a time when the _man_ Jesus did not exist, there was not a _man_ who was in existence from all eternity because that is what that would have to mean. God took on flesh 2000 years ago and will remain a man for all eternity from that point on. There was a definite distinction between God and the man Jesus and these verses were understood in this light.
> 
> generate- bring into existence generate - Definitions from Dictionary.com



Be careful of using dictionary definitions to define theological terms, because they are not accurate. Robert Reymond does not deny that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He takes issue with the understanding of generation.


----------



## Stephen

Davidius said:


> I noticed that the Confession says "eternally begotten." Is this the same as "eternally generated"? I'm just getting confused by the terms now.
> 
> Also, where can I find the best discussion of what it actually means to be "eternally begotten and/or generated"? To say "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" is not helpful to me unless I understand what it means (same goes for "3 persons/1 substance").




The only point I am trying to make is that Reymond's position is that he affirms that the Son is eternally begotten but he takes exception to the idea that the Son draws His essence of diety from the Father (eternal generation).


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Phrases like "a generation made without time" seem inherently self-contradictory. How can somthing be made without time?



This is just the old time and eternity problem. Every statement we make about the eternal is bound to a time-frame. Like saying God is, or God was, or God shall be. That's just the best we can do given the limitations of our experience and language. All such statements would be deemed inherently self-contradictory according to your criterion of judgment. We must be willing to accept the accommodating language of Scripture.


----------



## MW

Stephen said:


> The only point I am trying to make is that Reymond's position is that he affirms that the Son is eternally begotten but he takes exception to the idea that the Son draws His essence of diety from the Father (eternal generation).



On p. 325 Reymond provides what he thinks are satisfactory answers to the traditional arguments for the begetting of the Son, and then states, "The only conclusion that one can fairly draw from this data is that Scripture provides little to no clear warrant for the *speculation*" (emphasis added). In the volume, "What is God," he provides an appendix which attempts to answer Letham's concerns over Reymond's restriction of biblical language to "economical activities." Reymond's only response is to assert that the biblical language "reflects the reality of a reasoned order within the Trinity" (p. 344). On this basis the most that can be said about the inner life of the Trinity is that there is a first person, a second person, and a third person, and that all these persons are God. This is not biblical, catholic, reformed Trinitarianism.


----------



## Stephen

armourbearer said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only point I am trying to make is that Reymond's position is that he affirms that the Son is eternally begotten but he takes exception to the idea that the Son draws His essence of diety from the Father (eternal generation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On p. 325 Reymond provides what he thinks are satisfactory answers to the traditional arguments for the begetting of the Son, and then states, "The only conclusion that one can fairly draw from this data is that Scripture provides little to no clear warrant for the *speculation*" (emphasis added). In the volume, "What is God," he provides an appendix which attempts to answer Letham's concerns over Reymond's restriction of biblical language to "economical activities." Reymond's only response is to assert that the biblical language "reflects the reality of a reasoned order within the Trinity" (p. 344). On this basis the most that can be said about the inner life of the Trinity is that there is a first person, a second person, and a third person, and that all these persons are God. This is not biblical, catholic, reformed Trinitarianism.
Click to expand...


Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only point I am trying to make is that Reymond's position is that he affirms that the Son is eternally begotten but he takes exception to the idea that the Son draws His essence of diety from the Father (eternal generation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On p. 325 Reymond provides what he thinks are satisfactory answers to the traditional arguments for the begetting of the Son, and then states, "The only conclusion that one can fairly draw from this data is that Scripture provides little to no clear warrant for the *speculation*" (emphasis added).
Click to expand...

 And he may be right! Unlike Calvin, I don't think speculation is wrong. We should _reason _out all the possible implications, as well as the necessary ones. But at any point our reason leads to contradiction, then _something_ we have speculated is false - and we reject it (even if we deny we do this, we can not help it). Either our initial understanding is faulty, or our reasoning is faulty, but what ever is the case, we must correct it or reject it. 

And anything speculative, even if not contradictory, is never grounds for condemnation of a brother in Christ. 

So I do not reject the doctrine of eternal generation. Instead I assume that the Nicean fathers did not intend any meaning of the term that would cause a contradiction. However, the phrase is confusing at face, and I believe, at this point in my understanding, that it is a speculative doctrine and not a necessary one. The Trinity is a necessary doctrine, but eternal generation is an extension of the Trinity into areas that do not clearly follow from Scripture. 

Unless I can be shown clearly from Scripture that "eternal generation" follows from Scripture, by good and necessary consequence, and not in any way by speculation, then it would be a violation of my conscience, and my Christian liberty, to be required to confess the doctrine of "eternal generation" is truth. I simply do not know if it is true. And all this assumes I can clearly understand what the phrase means without using undefined terms and more convoluted reasoning. 

If it is required to confess "eternal generation" is true to be one this board, then I suspect that 90% of the members are in violation. Why, because I bet 90% of the members on this site don't really understand that doctrine. And those that do, can not seem to explain it in clear terms that other can understand.* 

We can not, as rational beings created in God's image, believe something beyond our understanding. As reformed people, we reject the Romanist doctrine of implicit faith in those things we do not understand. We can never in good conscience confess something we do not understand. We each have a duty to study the Word, and prove to ourselves those things which are true and from God. We may listen to our fathers, but we do not believe their word implicitly. We believe God's word explicitly.

Consider the Athanasius Creed, it is considered "one of the clearest definitions of the Trinity and the incarnation ever written." Do we confess it today?


> 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
> 
> 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
> 
> 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
> 
> 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
> 
> 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
> 
> 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
> 
> 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
> 
> 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
> 
> 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
> 
> 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
> 
> 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
> 
> 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
> 
> 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
> 
> 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
> 
> 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
> 
> 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
> 
> 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
> 
> 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
> 
> 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
> 
> 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
> 
> 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
> 
> 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
> 
> 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
> 
> 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
> 
> 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
> 
> 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
> 
> 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
> 
> 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
> 
> 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
> 
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
> 
> 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
> 
> 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
> 
> 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
> 
> 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
> 
> 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
> 
> 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
> 
> 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
> 
> 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
> 
> 42. and shall give account of their own works.
> 
> 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
> 
> 44. *This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.* (emphesis added)



It's a beautiful statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. But what reformed person can confess the first and last clause? Can any in good conscience confess each point, and demand all to do likewise? 

Why not? Because we have rejected the irrational idea of implicit faith.


* 
(I've heard and read explanations of quantum mechanics and Einsteins theory of Relativity, and many other complex ideas - that I have reasonably understood. I understand fluid mechanics, I understand the TULIP, I understand many complex ideas and concepts. I can even program my VCR. There is very little that I have encountered that was so complex or technical that I could not figure it out for myself, or get an expert in the field to explain to me in terms that I could understand. But sometimes, especially in the areas of theology and certain philosophies, I encounter ideas that are so convoluted, that no matter who I talk to - these "experts" can not satisfactorily explain them to me. Maybe I am asking the wrong people. Or maybe these ideas really do not make sense, and the people who are explaining them realize their ideas are incoherent so they hide it behind specialized language and in-house terminology. )


----------



## k.seymore

Stephen said:


> Christ came into this world refers to His incarnation. Christ became man at His incarnation. Christ as the eternal Son of God existed before His incarnation, but took on humanity at His incarnation.



What I was pointing out is that if one were to say Christ "being send into the world" is only referring to the incarnation it proves too much. I definitely think his incarnation is _included_ many times when Jesus says this, but not always. And in the case of John 3:17, the context definitely includes the incarnation, but notice all the words with double meanings in the passage... born from above/again, moved by the wind/spirit. I'm wondering if "sent into the world" also has the double meaning in John 3. That might affect how we understand the word "only begotten" in the verse before. If we look at the rest of the book, Jesus uses these phrases to mean two different things. Jesus says, "I am not of the world," and says God "sent me into the world." Sounds like these refer to his pre-existent state and incoming into the world at the incarnation. But sometimes when he tells us what this means it isn't what we expect. For instance, in reference to the disciples Jesus says,

"They are not of the world, _just as I_ am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. _As you sent me_ into the world, so I have sent them into the world." (John 17:16-19)

Jesus says that just like he is not of the world, so too are the disciples not of the world. That certainly isn't referring to pre-incarnate state anymore than it is referring to some pre-incarnate state the disciples had. And then Jesus says that like the way God send him into the world, so too he is sending the disciples into the world. That doesn't prove the disciples became incarnate and entered into the world from their pre-incarnate state. Instead it seems to mean that when the Spirit of Truth comes, the disciples will be anointed for their ministry and be sent to proclaim the message to the world just as Jesus was anointed by the Spirit at his baptism and then went out into the world to proclaim the message. That might also be what Jesus means when he calls himself "him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world." The greek word for consecrate here is the same one he uses that is translated sanctify here: "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world."

Jesus elsewhere in John uses "the world" to mean those he spoke to during his open ministry after his baptism: “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said" (John 18:20-21). Then in this same conversation Jesus says, "You say that I am a king. _For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world_—to bear witness to the truth." (John 18:37). Although one might argue that he is referring to the same event when he says "I was born" and then afterward says, "and... came into the world," with what he said right before this about his open ministry to the world, surely Pilate took this as meaning the mission Jesus was currently on, as if Jesus had said, "I was born to be a king, and then I came into the world to proclaim the message."

Hopefully all the above shows why I was wondering if "came into the world" John 3:17 also has this double meaning.


----------



## k.seymore

shackleton said:


> I tried to look up the word in the septuagint that is referred to in Hebrews 11:17 (Genesis 22:2) but the word from what I could tell just meant beloved son.



Wow! Thanks for posting that. That is incredibly, incredibly interesting that the word in Hebrew means beloved and the writer of Hebrews uses monogenes. I tried looking up the passage in the Septuagint and it didn't appear to use the word "monogenes" but I can't read greek. I can, however sound out the letters and nothing sounded like monogenes.

Check this out:

The author of Hebrews wants to talk about Abraham offering up Isaac, specifically this passage:

"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering" (Gen 22:2)

Where it says _only loved son_ Isaac, the author of Hebrews writes his "monogenes son Isaac.":

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son..." (Heb 11:17).

It appears that the author of Hebrews thinks monogenes can mean "unique" and "beloved," and as you pointed out, he uses it to translate a hebrew word that means "beloved" (or alternately he exchanges it for the Septuagint greek word).

Now, if Jews in the New Testament era thought monogenes can mean "unique" and "beloved" then here is what they may have read John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only beloved Son"

Now _that is interesting_ because understanding monogenes as meaning beloved would make John 3:16 sound even more like Genesis 22:2 where Abraham offers up his _only beloved son_. Which would imply that "only begotten" really really shouldn't be used to translate monogenes here because it breaks the connection (that is, if the connection I'm seeing really exists). Abraham didn't offer up his only _begotten_ son. It wasn't even his only son. He offered up his uniquely beloved son.

And _this is even more interesting_: If monogenes can mean "beloved" then when John says: 

"we beheld his glory, the glory as of the _only begotten_ of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake..."

What he is saying is: "We beheld the glory of the beloved Son of God. John the Baptist bore witness..." In the book of John, John the baptist bears this witness after he witnesses the Spirit descending of Jesus and the other gospels tell us that when this happened God said to Jesus "you are my beloved son." But oddly enough, this gospel doesn't say that after Jesus' baptism. And if my line of reasoning is correct, that is because John already told us what God said at Christ's baptism earlier when he called him monogenes. Jesus is the _uniquely beloved son_. God said it: "You are my beloved son."

And even more interesting, notice what the NET bible notes say about the word translated "beloved" in God's proclamation to Jesus in the other gospels:

"24tn Grk 'my beloved Son,' or 'my Son, the beloved [one].' The force of agaphtos is often “pertaining to one who is the only one of his or her class, but at the same time is particularly loved and cherished” (L&N 58.53; cf. also BDAG 7 s.v. 1).

Sounds like agaphtos means beloved in the sense of unique as well, like monogenes!

God gave his uniquely beloved son for us!


----------



## k.seymore

Stephen said:


> I am having trouble following your argument. I do no see how the incarnation proves too much. The text is only stating that the Son was sent by the Father into the world. ...The Son being sent is the incarnation and nothing more.



I agree that many of the passages about Jesus "not being of the world" and "coming into the world" include the incarnation. What I was trying to say is that if one simply always understands those phrases as referring to his pre-existent state and incarnation, then that proves more than one wants to prove. It would prove that the disciples also had a pre-existent state and they two became incarnate and sent into the world. I quoted passages were Jesus uses those phrases with other meanings to show how within the whole book of John they are used in two ways and interchanged. Not only that but check out what John the Baptist says about Jesus' coming into the world at the beginning of the book:

"_He who comes after me_ ranks before me, because he was before me."

John says Jesus' coming into the world is _after_ him and his own mission, but then he says Jesus was before himself as well! That fits nicely with the passages where Jesus seems to go back and forth between two meanings of "coming into the world." Does it make sense what I was saying now?


----------



## shackleton

From Spiros Zodiates Complete word dictionary of the New Testament
This word is mostly used of only son in the NT. Only John used it of Christ referring to him as the only Son of God.

G3439. μονογενής monogenēs; gen. monogenous, masc.-fem., neut. monogenon, from monos (G3441), only, and genos (G1085), stock. Unique, one of a kind, one and only. The only one of the family (Luke 7:12 referring to the only son of his mother; 8:42, the daughter of Jairus; Luke 9:38, the demoniac boy).

J*ohn alone uses monogenēs to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). *Genos, from which genēs in monogenēs is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and genō comes from ginomai (G1096), become, as in John 1:14, “and the Word became [egeneto] flesh.” *This is in distinction from gennaō (G1080), to beget, engender or create.* The noun from gennaō is gennēma (G1081), the result of birth. So then, *the word means one of a kind or unique*. There are two schools of thought regarding the meaning of this term. The first view, which began with Origen, teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and His generation by the Father are eternal being predicated of Him in respect to His participation in the Godhead. Although monogenēs was traditionally cited in proof of this explanation, modern proponents, recognizing the mistaken identification of genēs as a derivative of gennaō instead of genos, understand the word to be descriptive of the kind of Sonship Christ possesses and not of the process establishing such a relationship. This would serve to distinguish the Sonship of Christ to God from that spoken of other beings, e.g., Adam (Luke 3:28), angels (Job 1:6), or believers (John 1:12). The last view teaches that Christ’s unique Sonship and generation by the Father are predicated of Him in respect to the incarnation. The proponents of this interpretation unequivocally affirm the triune nature of the Godhead and Christ’s deity teaching that it is the word logos (G3056), Word, which designates His personage within the Godhead. Christ’s Sonship expresses an economical relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God. Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5). Thus the appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the preincarnate Word. Therefore, monogenēs can be held as syn. with the God-Man. Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God.

He is never called teknon Theou (teknon [G5043], child; Theou (G2316), of God) as the believers are (John 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). In John 5:18, Jesus called God His very own (idion (G2398)) Father. To Jesus, God was not a Father as He is to us. See John 20:17. He never spoke of God as the common Father of Him and believers. The term monogenēs also occurs in Heb. 11:17.


----------



## k.seymore

shackleton said:


> From Spiros Zodiates Complete word dictionary of the New Testament...



Great stuff, thanks for posting. Especially this part which emphasizes two of the biblical meanings of Son of God. Jesus is "begotten" as the "Son of God" in the old testament sense (including the surrounding ancient near eastern sense) when he was annointed to his position in time similar to how David and Solomon are described as being the Son of God by their position, and how by using monogenes John says Jesus is more than that. He is more than just the Son by position. He is the son by nature. He is unique:



shackleton said:


> Like David and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He is par excellence the Son of God by nature.



Great info.


----------



## MW

Stephen said:


> Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?



"What is God" is Reymond's work on the attributes of God following the pattern of the Shorter Catechism. It's published by Mentor.


----------



## Stephen

armourbearer said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you lost me. Where is the reference to What is God? Page 344 are simply quotes from the WCF on the eternal decrees of God. The reference to the appendix on Letham is not in his discussion on the eternal generation of the Son. Are you referring to Letham's review of Reymond's Systematic Theology in The Westminster Theological Journal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What is God" is Reymond's work on the attributes of God following the pattern of the Shorter Catechism. It's published by Mentor.
Click to expand...



Sorry, brother. Thanks. What is God is one of his newer books that I have not read yet.


----------



## shackleton

In looking back at different translations, KJV, NRSV, ESV, NLT at the following verses John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9, the KJV is the only one to use "begotten," the others use "only," or "one and only" Son. 
In other places monogenes is translated "only" in these other verses and refers to "sons" or "only sons " Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

reformedcop said:


> Amazon.com: A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated: Books: Robert L. Reymond



We have been assigned this book for a class at RPTS this term. Look forward to reading it.


----------



## JasonG.

*Correction on Dr. Reymond*



SolaGratia said:


> I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?



I want to offer a correction about Dr. Reymond's retirement - he left Knox, but did not retire.

As a former student of his and friend, I have spoken with him several times since he departed from Knox Seminary. *He did not retire, he RESIGNED out of protest*. Specifically, he resigned because of how the new KTS leadership is treating Dr. Cal Beisner and Dr. Fowler White - two men whom Dr. Reymond has much respect for and whom he believes are completely confessional men.

*I have posted a short history here.*


----------



## Stephen

JasonG. said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to offer a correction about Dr. Reymond's retirement - he left Knox, but did not retire.
> 
> As a former student of his and friend, I have spoken with him several times since he departed from Knox Seminary. *He did not retire, he RESIGNED out of protest*. Specifically, he resigned because of how the new KTS leadership is treating Dr. Cal Beisner and Dr. Fowler White - two men whom Dr. Reymond has much respect for and whom he believes are completely confessional men.
> 
> *I have posted a short history here.*
Click to expand...


----------



## JasonG.

*Not Quite*



Stephen said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he has retired from Knox Seminary. He is still in demand as a speaker. He teaches every summer at the London Baptist Seminary.
Click to expand...


Only slightly off topic.

Honestly Stephen, I only offered the post because of the wrong information that was communicated initially....


----------



## Dieter Schneider

John Murray - Collected Writings vol.4 - Studies in Theology, p.8 comments on Calvin and the Nicene Creed.


----------

