# Does the Son generate from the *Being* of God or



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2007)

Does the Son eternally generate (or is generated) from the being of the Godhead, or from the Person of the Father? This is an offshoot from the other thread.



> Originally Posted by JohnOwen007
> [1] That the person of the Son is the eternal generation of the person of the Father (John 5:26; 1 John 5:18).


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 29, 2007)

Could you add a few sentences of clarification for my little mind 

I thought the generation was his person?

An interesting aside is whether the generation was a one off or is ongoing. Warfield writes concerning Calvin:



> Although he taught that the Son was begotten of the Father, and of course begotten before all time, or as we say from all eternity, he seems to have drawn back from the doctrine of "eternal generation" as it was expounded by the Nicene Fathers. They were accustomed to explain "eternal generation" (in accordance with its very nature as "eternal "), not as something which has occurred once for all at some point of time in the past - however far back in the past - but as something which is always occurring, a perpetual movement of the divine essence from the first Person to the second, always complete, never completed.


----------



## MW (Aug 29, 2007)

Sonship is a *personal* property. The second person is the express image of the first person, Heb. 1:3. If the second person were generated from the being of God you would have a fourth person distinct from God, because the being of God is three.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 30, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Sonship is a *personal* property. The second person is the express image of the first person, Heb. 1:3. If the second person were generated from the being of God you would have a fourth person distinct from God, because the being of God is three.



How are you defining "being" here?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 30, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Does the Son eternally generate (or is generated) from the being of the Godhead, or from the Person of the Father? This is an offshoot from the other thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Matthew is spot on. The person of the Son is eternally generated from the person of the Father. The Cappadocians (_et. al._) spoke of this action in terms of the nature being passed to the Son to reflect the truth of John 5:26 that the Father's "life in himself" (i.e. not "life" but the eternal fount of life, aseity) was granted to the Son from the Father. But we are on the edge of transcendence when making these sorts of statments and it's hard to know how aseity can be granted by the Father to the Son. It's best to keep our mouth shut at this point and fall to our knees in worship.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Aug 30, 2007)

Is this teaching compatible with 'very God of very God'?


----------



## MW (Aug 30, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Sonship is a *personal* property. The second person is the express image of the first person, Heb. 1:3. If the second person were generated from the being of God you would have a fourth person distinct from God, because the being of God is three.
> ...



Essence. Turretin, Institutes, 1:293, "A person is properly said to generate a person because actions belong to self-existence (suppositorum); but not an essence to generate an essence because what begets and is begotten is necessarily multiplied (and thus the way would be paved to Tritheism). Essence indeed is communicated by generating; yet the generation, as it is originally made from the person, so it terminates on the person."


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 31, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Essence. Turretin, Institutes, 1:293, "A person is properly said to generate a person because actions belong to self-existence (suppositorum); but not an essence to generate an essence because what begets and is begotten is necessarily multiplied (and thus the way would be paved to Tritheism). Essence indeed is communicated by generating; yet the generation, as it is originally made from the person, so it terminates on the person."



I thoughts so bu just wanted to make sure. 

*Note to self *- must buy Turretin


----------



## bookslover (Sep 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Essence. Turretin, Institutes, 1:293, "A person is properly said to generate a person because actions belong to self-existence (suppositorum); but not an essence to generate an essence because what begets and is begotten is necessarily multiplied (and thus the way would be paved to Tritheism). Essence indeed is communicated by generating; yet the generation, as it is originally made from the person, so it terminates on the person."



Smoke and mirrors. But, we've been down this road at least once before...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 1, 2007)

No, good Reformed Theology.

Smoke and mirrors belong to those who depart from that, and reject the teaching of trinitarian theology set down by historical theology in Reformed Dogmatics. Those that depart, they are the "illusionists."

3. 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.a The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;b the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.c
_a._ Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 5:7. • _b._ John 1:14, 18. • _c._ John 15:26; Gal 4:6.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,a with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:b being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.c So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.d Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.e
_a._ John 1:1, 14; Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6; 1 John 5:20. • _b._ Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15. • _c._ Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal 4:4. • _d._ Luke 1:35; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18. • _e._ Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5.
3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure;a having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,b in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell;c to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,d he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety.e Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father,f who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.g


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Ok, that answers my question. Thanks for the Turretin reference. I have the Institutes and will check it out tonight


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 5, 2007)

The homoousios description alone excluded the Arians in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. The non-orthodox parties were willing to embrace 'eternal generation' - as propagated by Origen. 

Calvin refused to speculate on 'eternal generation', for which see 'The Institutes', 1.13 (closing sentences). I believe he is right.


----------



## MW (Sep 5, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Calvin refused to speculate on 'eternal generation', for which see 'The Institutes', 1.13 (closing sentences). I believe he is right.



Calvin refused to speculate on the *manner* of eternal generation, as was the custom in scholastic theology.


----------



## DTK (Sep 5, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> The homoousios description alone excluded the Arians in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. The non-orthodox parties were willing to embrace 'eternal generation'


It wasn't always so clear cut in this controversy as to the identification of the orthodox and the heretical views following the council of Nicea. Athanasius made a conciliatory gesture, saluting the *Homoeousians* as brothers [Greek removed] who in essentials were at one with himself... 



> *Athanasius (297-373):* Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies; nor do we here attack them as Ario-maniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word...Let then all contention cease, nor let us any longer conflict, though the Councils have differently taken the phrase ‘Coessential,’ for we have already assigned a sufficient defense of them; and to it the following may be added: — We have not derived the word ‘Unoriginate’ from Scripture, (for no where does Scripture call God Unoriginate,) yet since it has many authorities in its favor, I was curious about the term, and found that it too has different senses. Some, for instance, call what is, but is neither generated, nor has any personal cause at all, un-originate; and others, the uncreate. As then a person, having in view the former of these senses, viz. ‘that which has no personal cause,’ might say that the Son was not unoriginate, yet would not blame any one whom he perceived to have in view the other meaning, not a work or creature but an eternal offspring,’ and to affirm accordingly that the Son was unoriginate, (for both speak suitably with a view to their own object); so, even granting that the Fathers have spoken variously concerning the Coessential, let us not dispute about it, but take what they deliver to us in a religious way, when especially their anxiety was directed in behalf of religion. _NPNF2: Vol. IV, Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia_, Part 3, §41 & 46.



Church history was often more messy than we tend to think today when reflecting on it.

DTK


----------



## sotzo (Sep 5, 2007)

Can someone explain how this:



> Essence. Turretin, Institutes, 1:293, "A person is properly said to generate a person because actions belong to self-existence (suppositorum); but not an essence to generate an essence because what begets and is begotten is necessarily multiplied (and thus the way would be paved to Tritheism). Essence indeed is communicated by generating; yet the generation, as it is originally made from the person, so it terminates on the person."



...is equivalent or interpreted by this:



> 3. 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.a The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;b the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.c
> a. Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 John 5:7. • b. John 1:14, 18. • c. John 15:26; Gal 4:6.
> 
> 2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,a with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:b being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.c So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.d Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.e
> ...



I'm having a hard time seeing how the 2 connect...


----------



## MW (Sep 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> ...is equivalent or interpreted by this:



Turretin: "the generation, as it is originally made from the person, so it terminates on the person."

WCF: "the Son [person] is eternally begotten of the Father [person]."


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 6, 2007)

The meaning and usage of terminology and their translation should always be borne in mind. It's all very tricky and somewhat slippery. Hence the need for being unequivocal in the affirmation of the Son's deity. 'Homoousios' has not been replaced by any better term - as yet. 
May I say it? Much of what goes under evangelicalism is distinctly NOT Trinitarian. Sadly, the Westminster Confession (unlike Calvin's Institutes, 1559 ed.) has no Trinitarian structure. This does of course NOT mean that it is unbiblical or un-Calvinistic, but a shift of emphasis is detectable.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 6, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Sadly, the Westminster Confession (unlike Calvin's Institutes, 1559 ed.) has no Trinitarian structure. This does of course NOT mean that it is unbiblical or un-Calvinistic, but a shift of emphasis is detectable.



What do you mean by this statement concerning the WCF and a Trinitarian structure?


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Sadly, the Westminster Confession (unlike Calvin's Institutes, 1559 ed.) has no Trinitarian structure.



You and I must not be reading the same Westminster Confession. It might be helpful if you compared the Confession with the Institutes and demonstrated this assertion.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, the Westminster Confession (unlike Calvin's Institutes, 1559 ed.) has no Trinitarian structure.
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 10, 2007)

My request was likewise concerned with structure. On the one hand, you have an outline of the Institutes. On the other hand, you have an outline of the Confession. Where do the Institues differ so as to be more distinctively Trinitarian? As far as I can see they are both Trinitarian in structure. The inclusion of a chapter on the covenants does not give the Confession a federalist structure, just as a chapter on the decrees does not make it decretal. The work by and large follows the historic system as begun by the apostles' creed, with the added benefit of providing in its first chapter the explicit formal basis of the doctrines taught in the Confession.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 11, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> My request was likewise concerned with structure. On the one hand, you have an outline of the Institutes. On the other hand, you have an outline of the Confession. Where do the Institues differ so as to be more distinctively Trinitarian? As far as I can see they are both Trinitarian in structure. The inclusion of a chapter on the covenants does not give the Confession a federalist structure, just as a chapter on the decrees does not make it decretal. The work by and large follows the historic system as begun by the apostles' creed, with the added benefit of providing in its first chapter the explicit formal basis of the doctrines taught in the Confession.



I would simply reiterate that S Ferguson and John Murray (cited above) sum it up very nicely. Causa finita est!


----------

