# Eternally begotten vs Eternally generated



## ClayPot (May 21, 2009)

Hello everyone,

I was hoping I could get thoughts regarding these terms.

1. Do they mean the same thing? If not, what are the differences?
2. When the creeds used the term eternally begotten, do they mean something more than that fact that Jesus was begotten by the Father (clearly stated in many Scriptures) and that this begetting must be eternal since the Son has always existed? Or stated slightly differently, what meaning do you think this term has beyond affirming that the Son has always existed and never came into existence?
3. Does "eternal generation" have the connotation that the Son's existence depends on the Father's existence?

I look forward to your responses.


----------



## Prufrock (May 21, 2009)

We do not need to raise any differentiation between the Son eternally generated, and the Son eternally begotten.

Question 3 is a bit touchy, and words must be understand properly lest any ambiguity arise. First and foremost, it _must_ be recognized that the Son is equally God in everyway with the Father; in fact, they are both simply differing hypostastes in the same substance, or essence. Calvin rightly emphasized the _aseity_ of the Son -- he is God in an underived sense. This cannot be overemphasized. 

Nevertheless, we must also take into account the traditional scholastic concepts of _properties, relations_ and _notions_. If we consider, for example, "property," Turretin describes it thus: "_Property denotes the peculiar mode of subsisting and diacritical character by which this or that person is constituted in his being and is distinguished from the others._" The "property" of the Son is filiation; the property of the Father is paternity. Thus, without the Father by whom the Son is begotten, it would not make sense to speak of "the Son," nor, without the Son would it make sense to speak of "the Father."

It should also be noted that theologians often assign a certain pre-eminence to the Father; but this is _not_ respect essence, "but [to quote Turretin again] as to mode, both in subsisting and in working." Thus the Father is called "the fountain of deity, not absolutely as to existence, but respectively as to the communication of it."

Sometimes it is best not to peer too far into these things (until controversy presses us to do so); it is more than fitting to simply acknowledge that God is One in being; that God simply exists as a Trinity, the three persons equal in Godhead, essence and power, but such that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father.


----------



## ewenlin (May 21, 2009)

Hi Joshua,

from a commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism by Johannes G. Vos,



> Q. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
> A. It is proper to the Father to _beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.
> 
> Commentary qns 1.: What is the meaning of the word begets in speaking of the Trinity?
> ...


_

To be begotten is as Vos says, to set forth the relationship. To be generated is to imply that there was a time when the Son did not exist but was rather after a point, generated.

Hope this helps._


----------



## py3ak (May 21, 2009)

Ewen, I don't believe your statement about generation will actually stand up to scrutiny. While there may be some nuance between begot/begotten and generate/generated, when orthodox theologians affirm the eternal generation of the Son they are not implying that there was a time when the Word was not - that is an Arian view.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (May 21, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> We do not need to raise any differentiation between the Son eternally generated, and the Son eternally begotten.
> 
> Question 3 is a bit touchy, and words must be understand properly lest any ambiguity arise. First and foremost, it _must_ be recognized that the Son is equally God in everyway with the Father; in fact, they are both simply differing hypostastes in the same substance, or essence. Calvin rightly emphasized the _aseity_ of the Son -- he is God in an underived sense. This cannot be overemphasized.
> 
> ...



This answer is one of the best examples of why I love the PB. Thank you for a short but powerful response. When some people cut and paste long sections it can be too much for my brain. Prufrock, I think YouRock.


----------



## py3ak (May 21, 2009)

John Gill discusses the matter at some length in his _Body of Doctrinal Divinity_, Book I, Chapter 28. Here is a short summary statement:



> To come to the point; it is the personal relations, or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them one from another; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second, and spiration in the third; or, more plainly, it is “begetting”, Psalm 2:7 which peculiarly belongs to the first, and is never ascribed to the second and third; which distinguishes him from them both; and gives him, with great propriety, the name of Father; and it is being “begotten”, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the second Person; hence called, “the only begotten of the Father”, John 1:14 which distinguishes him from the first and third, and gives him the name of the Son; and the relative property, or personal relation of the third Person is, that he is breathed by the first and second Persons; hence called, the breath of the Almighty, the breath of the mouth of Jehovah the Father, and the breath of the mouth of Christ the Lord, and which is never said of the other two persons; and so distinguishes him from them, and very pertinently gives him the name of the Spirit, or breath, Job 33:4; Psalm 33:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:8.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 21, 2009)

py3ak said:


> John Gill discusses the matter at some length in his _Body of Doctrinal Divinity_, Book I, Chapter 28. Here is a short summary statement:
> 
> 
> 
> > To come to the point; it is the personal relations, or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them one from another; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second, and spiration in the third; or, more plainly, it is “begetting”, Psalm 2:7 which peculiarly belongs to the first, and is never ascribed to the second and third; which distinguishes him from them both; and gives him, with great propriety, the name of Father; and it is being “begotten”, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the second Person; hence called, “the only begotten of the Father”, John 1:14 which distinguishes him from the first and third, and gives him the name of the Son; and the relative property, or personal relation of the third Person is, that he is breathed by the first and second Persons; hence called, the breath of the Almighty, the breath of the mouth of Jehovah the Father, and the breath of the mouth of Christ the Lord, and which is never said of the other two persons; and so distinguishes him from them, and very pertinently gives him the name of the Spirit, or breath, Job 33:4; Psalm 33:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:8.



But what does being "begotten" mean? Would that be merely in reference to the "personal relations" within the Trinity or does it have to with God's Being as well?

Robert Reymond in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 325, says this about the Nicene Fathers' understanding of this issue:



> The Son, however, is begotten by the Father and that by an act of eternal generation on the part of the Father but in such a sense that the Son is "begotten, not made." What does all this mean precisely? It means that these Fathers [Nicene] taught that the Son derives his essential being or existence as God from the Father (see their "out of the being of the Father") through an "always continuing and yet ever complete" act of begetting on the Father's part. In sum, *the Father alone has being from himself; the Son eternally derives his being from the Father*. [emphasis mine]



Would you say that Reymond's assessment of what the Nicene Father's believed in was correct? And, I am also wondering whether John Gill is in agreement with this? Would the "distinctive relative properties" that Gill is referring to extend only to "personal relations" or would that have something to do with God's being as well?


UPDATE: By the way, I also wish to point out that Reymond, later in his book, shows that he disagrees with the Nicene Fathers. And, I don't agree with Reymond. I don't see why he may think that this is harmful to the Ontological Trinity. If Christ eternally derives his being from the Father, that shows that our God is One (but Three Persons).


----------



## py3ak (May 21, 2009)

This discussion might shed some light on the matter.


----------



## ewenlin (May 22, 2009)

Thanks Ruben, read through it again and I stand corrected!


----------

