Berkhof: "God the Father generates the Son"

[TomVols]

In Berkhof's chapter on the Trinity in "A Summary of Christian Doctrine" (along with his Manual and his ST), he makes the following statement: "The distinctive characteristic of the Father is that he generates the Son from all eternity."

This is repeated in his section on the Son when he says "By means of eternal generation, the Father is the cause of the personal existence of the Son within the Divine Being." I'm curious as to how he is using the words "generates/generation" here and his implication from these statements.

 

[Hamalas]

This is pretty standard language.

What distinguishes the persons of the Trinity from each other is not their attributes but their relations.

So the Father is distinguishable from the Son and the Spirit in that He is not begotten. The Son is distinguishable from the Father and the Spirit in that He is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit is distinguishable from the Father and the Son in that He is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3 puts it this way:

"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. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

 

[Hamalas]

Here's a helpful general overview of the subject: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/divine-begottenness-and-procession/

And here's a more detailed discussion that connects with contemporary Trinitarian debates: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/

 

[Bill Duncan]

He uses generates in the same sense that Jesus speaks that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father" John 15:26 Gregory of Nazianzus says the Father is the "originator of the emanation" in a non-temporal, incorporeal way.

 

[TomVols]

This is pretty standard language.

What distinguishes the persons of the Trinity from each other is not their attributes but their relations.

So the Father is distinguishable from the Son and the Spirit in that He is not begotten. The Son is distinguishable from the Father and the Spirit in that He is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit is distinguishable from the Father and the Son in that He is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3 puts it this way:

"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. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

I think the WCF and your wording is much more helpful. It might be a bit arrogant to say that "generates" could lead the contemporary reader to abandon eternal sonship or adopt belief in the Son as created, but I think we have to bear in mind that Berkhof's language is accurate in context.

This question was posed to me by a first time ST reader, so keep your responses coming. I'm grateful.

 

[Jack K]

Perhaps it is our individualistic culture that causes us to read the word generate—a word about fathers and sons—and think of order: Who is higher, and who comes first? But that's only one, human way to think of fathers and sons, and it clearly is not the intended way when we speak of God the Father and God the Son and "eternal" generation. There's no who comes first when you specify eternity.

Another way to think of fathers and sons, of generation, is: Like father, like son. This kind of generation emphasizes sameness. The father is an imprint for the son. This is what the Bible is getting at in passages like Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, and it comes closer to what our theologians mean when they speak of eternal generation.

 

[TomVols]

Perhaps it is our individualistic culture that causes us to read the word generate—a word about fathers and sons—and think of order: Who is higher, and who comes first? But that's only one, human way to think of fathers and sons, and it clearly is not the intended way when we speak of God the Father and God the Son and "eternal" generation. There's no who comes first when you specify eternity.

Another way to think of fathers and sons, of generation, is: Like father, like son. This kind of generation emphasizes sameness. The father is an imprint for the son. This is what the Bible is getting at in passages like Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, and it comes closer to what our theologians mean when they speak of eternal generation.

Close. In this context the concern was one of time-order. The father "generates" the son in the sense of "creates" rather than of relational substance ("generation").

 

[TomVols]

He uses generates in the same sense that Jesus speaks that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father" John 15:26 Gregory of Nazianzus says the Father is the "originator of the emanation" in a non-temporal, incorporeal way.

This response is quite helpful. Some would question how the father and son could be co-eternal and yet only one is uncaused/uncreated.

 

[RamistThomist]

This response is quite helpful. Some would question how the father and son could be co-eternal and yet only one is uncaused/uncreated.

The answer is that the generation isn't physical nor is it *in* time.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Beget and generate are synonyms. While the former is more familiar to us as the word used in our English translations as "only begotten", by generates Berkhof means nothing else than this.

 

[Timotheos]

This is pretty standard language.

What distinguishes the persons of the Trinity from each other is not their attributes but their relations.

So the Father is distinguishable from the Son and the Spirit in that He is not begotten. The Son is distinguishable from the Father and the Spirit in that He is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit is distinguishable from the Father and the Son in that He is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 2.3 puts it this way:

"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. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

This was my first thought as well. Seemed pretty standard to me.

 

[TheInquirer]

Standard orthodox language. The hard part is that it isn't something we can fully understand since there is nothing in creation to point to that has its existence in this way. The Father has always generated the Son and done in a way that it didn't happen at a point in time nor was God's being divided in any way (spiritual).

Good friend of mine wrote this very helpful article on the subject and notes the generation is internal, spiritual, and eternal and thus does not violate God's immutability - https://credomag.com/article/immutability-and-eternal-generation/

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I find Cyril of Alexandria helpful on this matter. I will be quoting from an older translation as this is what I have on my computer. I much prefer the newer one in the Ancient Christian Texts series. Either way, it shall suffice for this discussion.

"Nor is it any objection to conceive of the Son being in the Father as in a Source: for the word source here only means the "whence." But the Son is in the Father, and of the Father, not as made externally, nor in time, but being in the Essence of the Father and flashing forth from Him, as from the sun its radiance, or as from fire its innate heat. For in such examples, one may see one thing generated of another, but yet ever co-existing and inseparable, so that one cannot exist of itself apart from the other, and yet preserve the true condition of its own nature. For how can there be sun which has not radiance, or how radiance without sun being within to irradiate it? how fire, if it have not heat? whence heat, save from fire, or from some other thing not removed from the essential quality of fire? As then in these, the in-existence of the things that are of them does not take away their co-existence, but indicates the things generated ever keeping pace with their generators and possessed of one nature so to speak with them, so too is it with the Son. For even if He be conceived and said to be in the Father and of the Father, He will not come before us as alien and strange and a Being second to Him, but as in Him and co-existing ever, and shining forth from Him, according to the ineffable mode of the Divine generation." - Cyril of Alexandria - "Commentary on John"

 

[Bill Duncan]

My former Pastor and now Professor at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Ryan McGraw, taught me the notion of the Trinitarian Avenue which helps me in this distinction of the God head. We approach by the Spirit, through the Son, to the Father. God approaches from the Father , through the Son, by the Spirit. When I square this with Calvin's distinction of persons, that "to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit," I better comprehend the Triune mystery.

 

[py3ak]

"Father" and "Son" are correlative terms; you can't have one without the other. Begetting or generation is one of the names used to describe that particular correlative relationship (paternity would be another, as would filiation). It's as important to specify eternal generation in the case of the Father as it is in that of the Son. Because the Father didn't pre-exist as something else and then become Father upon generating the Son. Because he is the eternal Father, his Son is likewise co-eternal.

 

[TomVols]

Frame’s discussion in his ST is also very helpful.

I’m wondering how comfortable the group is with Grudem’s position and how far it drifts into unorthodoxy

 

[TomVols]

Grudem states, "But just what is meant by "eternal generation"? In what they have written, I cannot discover what they mean. To substitute the words "paternity" and "filiation" provides some Latinized terminology but those terms simply mean "existing as a father" and "existing as a son," which tells us nothing more. Quite honestly, I find it impossible to say whether or not I agree with "eternal generation" until someone explains, in ordinary English, what he means by it (not just what it does not mean). (If "eternal generation" simply means "an eternal Father-Son relationship," then I am happy to affirm it.)"

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

 

[Hamalas]

Frame’s discussion in his ST is also very helpful.

I’m wondering how comfortable the group is with Grudem’s position and how far it drifts into unorthodoxy

I wouldn't go to Grudem on this point.

 

[TomVols]

I wouldn't go to Grudem on this point.

And that’s precisely why I brought it up. How far would we consider him out of bounds here?