Eternal Generation & Logical Consequences Simplified?

[Deleted member 13126]

I am just now wading into this topic of Robert Reymond, et al vs. Nicea and am struggling to understand the differences between the two positions and the logical consequences of each.

I’m currently just getting started reading Simply Trinity which is going to help me presumably with the historic view of eternal generation. Robert Reymond’s ST does have a section on eternal generation.

I’ve combed through PB and found posts such as this one with seemingly helpful links, but all the links are broken.

I can clearly discern that hairs are being split, distinctions are being made, etc. But where I’m really struggling is understanding the implications of one position being true vs. the other. I’ve read that in one view the person but not essence is being eternally generated, and that in the other view both are indivisibly being generated. I really want to understand the positions, but all if it kind of makes my head ache. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect one side to be charitable toward the other as this is an issue that some may rightly regard as dogmatic, but I am trying to get a balanced view of both sides and their motivations.

Is this something that can be explained more simply? Or is there a text somewhere (online or otherwise) that will give me an overview of both positions and the downstream implications of both views?

I’ll be visiting with Dr. Peter Masters next week and plan to ask him if I have the opportunity, but wanted to go into that somewhat informed.

@RamistThomist, @Contra_Mundum or maybe @Knight?

 

[JD]

I would encourage you to keep reading Simply Trinity. I can't imagine a more digestible introduction to these topics. It helped me a ton.

However a search of "eternal generation" on Monergism turns up quite a few short articles and blog posts.

This series of Tabletalk articles written by Barrett himself would probably be a great place to start.

 

[Polanus1561]

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I would encourage you to keep reading Simply Trinity. I can't imagine a more digestible introduction to these topics. It helped me a ton.

However a search of "eternal generation" on Monergism turns up quite a few short articles and blog posts.

This series of Tabletalk articles written by Barrett himself would probably be a great place to start.

Alrighty, it’s coming on the plane with me if I haven’t finished it by then. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I am just now wading into this topic of Robert Reymond, et al vs. Nicea and am struggling to understand the differences between the two positions and the logical consequences of each.

I’m currently just getting started reading Simply Trinity which is going to help me presumably with the historic view of eternal generation. Robert Reymond’s ST does have a section on eternal generation.

I’ve combed through PB and found posts such as this one with seemingly helpful links, but all the links are broken.

I can clearly discern that hairs are being split, distinctions are being made, etc. But where I’m really struggling is understanding the implications of one position being true vs. the other. I’ve read that in one view the person but not essence is being eternally generated, and that in the other view both are indivisibly being generated. I really want to understand the positions, but all if it kind of makes my head ache. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect one side to be charitable toward the other as this is an issue that some may rightly regard as dogmatic, but I am trying to get a balanced view of both sides and their motivations.

Is this something that can be explained more simply? Or is there a text somewhere (online or otherwise) that will give me an overview of both positions and the downstream implications of both views?

I’ll be visiting with Dr. Peter Masters next week and plan to ask him if I have the opportunity, but wanted to go into that somewhat informed.

@RamistThomist, @Contra_Mundum or maybe @Knight?

Hey, brother. A few thoughts.

If eternal generation is denied, then the Father is not the Father and the Son is not the Son. The terms are meaningless apart from generation. So, to deny eternal generation is to deny the Father and the Son.

The Christian confession is that the Son is eternally generated of the Father, and in that act of generation, the Father communicates to the Son his substance, so that they are consubstantial. In communicating his substance (i.e., the Divine essence) to the Son, the Father communicates all the properties, or attributes, of divinity to him.

You will come across those who deny eternal generation in the name of asserting the aseity of the Son. Those who do so manifest their own ignorance of eternal generation. It is in eternal generation that the Father communicates aseity to the Son.

These are truths essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. The departure from the faith of some within the Reformed world on this point should grieve us. It is not an acceptable view that we can take or leave; it's a cancer.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Denying eternal generation is akin to asserting tritheism, or making the Godhead three individuals in a single species.
Beware of those who take "the Son is autotheos" to mean "the divine essence is not communicated from the Father to the Son" or "the Son is not begotten of the Father."
Also beware of bastardized modern translations that scrub the New Testament of every reference to the generation of the Son.
Compare the KJV ("And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.")
And NASB ("And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
With the ESV ("And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
CSB ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
NIV ("The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
NLT ("So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.")

One might ask, what's the big deal? Aren't "son" and "begotten Son" the same thing? The answer is, "no." The Greek isn't ὑιός (son), but μονογενοῦς, "only-begotten." And semantically, a son isn't necessarily begotten, because some sons are adopted. But the second person of the Trinity isn't adopted, he's begotten. So "only-begotten" is expressing something important.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Father is Father because he begets the Son. The Son is Son because he is begotten. In other words, we distinguish the persons of the Trinity by their modes of origination (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). Take away that, and there really isn't a reason to call the Father "Father."

True, there is some mystery there, but it is better than the alternatives.

 

[arapahoepark]

Denying eternal generation is akin to asserting tritheism, or making the Godhead three individuals in a single species.
Beware of those who take "the Son is autotheos" to mean "the divine essence is not communicated from the Father to the Son" or "the Son is not begotten of the Father."
Also beware of bastardized modern translations that scrub the New Testament of every reference to the generation of the Son.
Compare the KJV ("And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.")
And NASB ("And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
With the ESV ("And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
CSB ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
NIV ("The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.")
NLT ("So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.")

One might ask, what's the big deal? Aren't "son" and "begotten Son" the same thing? The answer is, "no." The Greek isn't ὑιός (son), but μονογενοῦς, "only-begotten." And semantically, a son isn't necessarily begotten, because some sons are adopted. But the second person of the Trinity isn't adopted, he's begotten. So "only-begotten" is expressing something important.

The Father is Father because he begets the Son. The Son is Son because he is begotten. In other words, we distinguish the persons of the Trinity by their modes of origination (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). Take away that, and there really isn't a reason to call the Father "Father."

True, there is some mystery there, but it is better than the alternatives.

Just curious, I assume this touches on the debate surrounding the term 'monogenes'? If so what's the best argument against the new proposal? I know very little other than that

 

[Polanus1561]

The Father is Father because he begets the Son. The Son is Son because he is begotten. In other words, we distinguish the persons of the Trinity by their modes of origination (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). Take away that, and there really isn't a reason to call the Father "Father."

True, there is some mystery there, but it is better than the alternatives.

any thoughts on Warfield's assessment on Eternal G?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Just curious, I assume this touches on the debate surrounding the term 'monogenes'? If so what's the best argument against the new proposal? I know very little other than that

The arguments would mostly revolve around the etymology of the term (μονο, "only" + γενός, "offspring"; if one just wants to say "only" in Greek there are other words for that), and other texts that touch on the matter of eternal generation, like Psalm 2.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As a father, my child's existence is unequivocally derivative of my existence. In that kind of case, paternity equals superiority, seniority of existence.

My fatherhood is an analogy of divine Fatherhood. My fatherhood is derivative. God's Fatherhood is not some analogy a man cooked up to try to explain who God is by analogizing God. Therefore, what makes God's Fatherhood, and God's Sonship, is not based on any prior certainty about human fatherhood. God the Son is in no way derivative of God the Father.

God the Father eternally begets the Son. As was previously stated, the Son's substance is communicated to him from the Father as the Person considered the fount or fund of divinity. However, this doesn't make the Son derivative of the Father as if a pre-existent Father was a necessary entailment of the divine Father-Son relation. The Father does not exist without his Son at any moment, at any level, in any place. Moreover, the Son does not exist without his Father in exactly the same context. In a way that only comports with a divine relationship, the Father and the Son are equal in this connection.

My child has potentiality apart from me, but may have no actuality. There is no potential God the Son, only actual. In time, I might generate a son or I might not. I could become another kind of father: father of a country, father of musical instruments (Gen.4:21), etc. Having a son will not have him make me a father in a way equal to the way I make my son my son. He will be my son because I am his father, having priority (causation) before him.

But God the Son's eternal begettedness perfectly balances God the Father's eternal paternity. There is never God who has no Word or Logos, nor any Speech or Voice who has no Utterer. The Word demands a Speaker; as much as God must Speak. The Word of God IS God, not merely derivative of God the way my words are derivative of me and my mind. My words compel no utterance, they are not me, they have no willing in them. But there is one will within God, the same will of Father and Son (and Spirit).

 

[Deleted member 13126]

As a father, my child's existence is unequivocally derivative of my existence. In that kind of case, paternity equals superiority, seniority of existence.

My fatherhood is an analogy of divine Fatherhood. My fatherhood is derivative. God's Fatherhood is not some analogy a man cooked up to try to explain who God is by analogizing God. Therefore, what makes God's Fatherhood, and God's Sonship, is not based on any prior certainty about human fatherhood. God the Son is in no way derivative of God the Father.

God the Father eternally begets the Son. As was previously stated, the Son's substance is communicated to him from the Father as the Person considered the fount or fund of divinity. However, this doesn't make the Son derivative of the Father as if a pre-existent Father was a necessary entailment of the divine Father-Son relation. The Father does not exist without his Son at any moment, at any level, in any place. Moreover, the Son does not exist without his Father in exactly the same context. In a way that only comports with a divine relationship, the Father and the Son are equal in this connection.

My child has potentiality apart from me, but may have no actuality. There is no potential God the Son, only actual. In time, I might generate a son or I might not. I could become another kind of father: father of a country, father of musical instruments (Gen.4:21), etc. Having a son will not have him make me a father in a way equal to the way I make my son my son. He will be my son because I am his father, having priority (causation) before him.

But God the Son's eternal begettedness perfectly balances God the Father's eternal paternity. There is never God who has no Word or Logos, nor any Speech or Voice who has no Utterer. The Word demands a Speaker; as much as God must Speak. The Word of God IS God, not merely derivative of God the way my words are derivative of me and my mind. My words compel no utterance, they are not me, they have no willing in them. But there is one will within God, the same will of Father and Son (and Spirit).

Tracking. Thank you very much Pastor!

 

[JvMill]

I’ve gone through the same process, same confusions, same questions. Barrett was vital for opening up the vocabulary to me.

A few points that could potentially help:

Person begets person
(Father begets Son)

Person does not beget nature
(Father does not beget the divine nature)

Rather, the person begets the person which entails communicating his own essence to the second person
(The Father begets the Son which entails communicating ‘giving’ his essence to the Son)

This is the only way we can be confident in the deity and equality of the Son, that the Father communicates His very nature to the Son. That’s what it means for him to be a Father and for the Son to be a Son. There’s a lot in the name.

And lest we forget the Holy Spirit, it’s the same thing yet from the Father and the Son as from a single source (we being good westerners and all). We don’t often think too much and out the Holy Spirit because once the deity of the Son was establish, the deity of the Holy Spirit was a relatively small step.

So, a recap:
The Father begets the Son. He does not communicate ‘personhood’ to the Son but rather He communicates his own nature/essence (the one, simple, undivided essence) to the Son.

To be a divine person is to be a unique way in which the divine essence exists: the Father as unbegotten, the Son as begotten, and the Spirit as spirited or breathed forth.

Here is an example of the monumental effects that can occur from denying EG…

I have seen some say that there is no reason that the Father could not have been sent instead of the Son. Some take this even farther saying that the names of the divine persons are functional at best and arbitrary at worst.

Something like “there’s no reason the Father could not have been called the Son, other than the roles/functions they fulfilled in salvation history.”

See the problem? God is now defined by his relationship with us. He has been flattened to creation, lacking any kind of life in and of himself making him little more than a creature. A horrible thought.

EG is huge. Without it, one’s trinitarianism is anemic/inconsistent at best and heretical at worst. There is no valid reason to maintain the unity of the persons without divine processions (viz., eternal generation and eternal spiration).

 

[Polanus1561]

I have seen some say that there is no reason that the Father could not have been sent instead of the Son. Some take this even farther saying that the names of the divine persons are functional at best and arbitrary at worst.

Some would then retort that if it was necessary the Son be the One sent, then it implies eternal subordination.

 

[Egoshev]

In other words, we distinguish the persons of the Trinity by their modes of origination (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration).

Mr, I believe you just refuted the Filioque. You're right by stating that we distinguish the Hypostasis by Their unique individual hypostatic qualities, properties (meaning, they can't be shared between Them).

Take away that, and there really isn't a reason to call the Father "Father.

So, to attribute a hypostatic quality (belonging to the Father) to the Son, would diminish the second Hypostasis (the Son).

 

[JvMill]

Some would then retort that if it was necessary the Son be the One sent, then it implies eternal subordination.

Right, but historically those defending the ‘fittingness’ of the missions never pointed to the subordination of the Son but rather if the Father was sent then there would be two Son and a grandson, etc.

Personally, I enjoy Fred Sanders take (not that he came up with it) where the missions reveal the processions and therefore that is why God did it the way He did, to show us himself. His book did a lot for me too but it is NOT entry level by any means.

 

[RamistThomist]

Mr, I believe you just refuted the Filioque. You're right by stating that we distinguish the Hypostasis by Their unique individual hypostatic qualities, properties (meaning, they can't be shared between Them).

I understand what you are saying. At the moment, I am simply stating the traditional view.

So, to attribute a hypostatic quality (belonging to the Father) to the Son, would diminish the second Hypostasis (the Son).

I don't see how it diminishes the Son. EO have traditionally said, whether one agrees with them or not, that such a view diminishes the Spirit.

 

[Egoshev]

I understand what you are saying. At the moment, I am simply stating the traditional view.


I don't see how it diminishes the Son. EO have traditionally said, whether one agrees with them or not, that such a view diminishes the Spirit.

As you've previously stated, we distinguish the Hypostasis by their modes of originating, by definition those unique hypostatic qualities, are what distinguishes the Hypostasis, meaning that They individually posses unique hypostatic qualities, which cannot be shared between more Hypostasis. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father. Attribute this hypostatic quality to another Hypostasis, you mix the two Hypostasis into one.

This is the whole problem with the "Filioque". The hypostatic quality belonging to the Father [the Proceedor of the Holy Spirit (stated in John 15:26 by the Theologos Himself)], if we attribute it to the Son, we would diminish the Son to simply the "Father", because definitionally there can be no sharing of hypostatic quality between two Hypostasis. If two Hypostasis share one hypostatic quality, then there would be no two persons, but one.

That's the grave danger of the Filioque. Ontologically there can be no Three Hypostasis in the Trinity, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son".

 

[Deleted member 6112]

As you've previously stated, we distinguish the Hypostasis by their modes of originating. The Son is eternally begotten by the Father. Attribute this hypostatic quality to another Hypostasis, you mix the two Hypostasis in on. That's the whole problem with the "Filioque". The hypostatic quality belonging to the Father [the Proceedor of the Holy Spirit (stated in John 15:26 by the Theologos Himself)], if we attribute it to the Son, we would diminish the Son to simply the Father, because there can be no sharing of hypostatic quality between two Hypostasis. If two Hypostasis share one hypostatic quality, then there would be no two persons, but one.

Brother, this thread is about the generation of the Son, not the procession of the Spirit. Also, note that all of the Reformed confessions affirm the filioque, and it is therefore against the rules of this board to argue against it.

I'll leave you, however, with this quote from Maximus the Confessor, showing that the filioque does not imply a double cause/origin/aitia of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but that his procession is from the Father through the Son:

"The Holy Spirit, then, as he is by nature and in substance the Father's, so he is by nature and in substance the Son's as ineffably proceeding out of the Father substantially through the Son in the latter's being begotten."

Thus he is called the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6 KJV), while his sole origin is in the Father, who is the sole fount of all divinity.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hey, brother. A few thoughts.

If eternal generation is denied, then the Father is not the Father and the Son is not the Son. The terms are meaningless apart from generation. So, to deny eternal generation is to deny the Father and the Son.

The Christian confession is that the Son is eternally generated of the Father, and in that act of generation, the Father communicates to the Son his substance, so that they are consubstantial. In communicating his substance (i.e., the Divine essence) to the Son, the Father communicates all the properties, or attributes, of divinity to him.

You will come across those who deny eternal generation in the name of asserting the aseity of the Son. Those who do so manifest their own ignorance of eternal generation. It is in eternal generation that the Father communicates aseity to the Son.

These are truths essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. The departure from the faith of some within the Reformed world on this point should grieve us. It is not an acceptable view that we can take or leave; it's a cancer.

I'm also newish to this debate, but question here: how can one have communicated aseity? Wouldn't aseity that is communicated sort of not be full aseity?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I'm also newish to this debate, but question here: how can one have communicated aseity? Wouldn't aseity that is communicated sort of not be full aseity?

Aseity is an attribute of Divinity, and the divine substance is communicated to the Son in his generation.

 

[JvMill]

I'm also newish to this debate, but question here: how can one have communicated aseity? Wouldn't aseity that is communicated sort of not be full aseity?

Therein lies the mystery. We confess it even though we don’t have it down to a mathematical formula. Shoot we can’t even sufficiently explain what aseity is.

 

[JD]

Credo Alliance: Why We Believe in Eternal Generation (Fesko, Barrett, Swain, Sanders)

I just ran across this this morning. 40 min podcast covering exactly the question you're asking, CH.

Edit: Looks like Credo did an entire issue on EG. https://credomag.com/magazine_issue/eternal-generation/

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Credo Alliance: Why We Believe in Eternal Generation (Fesko, Barrett, Swain, Sanders)

I just ran across this this morning. 40 min podcast covering exactly the question you're asking, CH.

Edit: Looks like Credo did an entire issue on EG. https://credomag.com/magazine_issue/eternal-generation/

Thank you very much! Listening to this now.

 

[MattHedges]

It is absolutely crucial to maintain in the discussion on eternal generation that the divine essence itself is not begotten, rather it is the person of the Son that it is begotten. The persons are identical to the essence in reality, but are distinct in their formal notions, hence we can deny of the persons what we would affirm of the essence (real distinctions).

Gisbertus Voetius is probably the best author on eternal generation, in my opinion (if you're looking for resources on the subject)

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

EDIT: Maybe I better read the whole thread first.