Reymond on Trinity

[User20004000]

This discussion is being moved.

Context, I wrote:

In the first [ST edition], [Reymond] rejected certain Nicene categories. He also interpreted Nicene language incorrectly, going so far as to posit that the Westminster Assembly might have (even, “much more likely”) rejected eternal generation and spiration in favor of Calvin, but I believe he also got Calvin wrong.

His interpretation of the creed left him with only the Father as God in and of himself, who in turn deifies the Son. They both then deify the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, either he got the creed wrong or else the creed is heretical.

Are you saying he is saying this about the Creed, or that this is his belief? Because this most certainly is not his belief. The substance of his argument is that aseity is essential to deity, so therefore the Son, if he is truly God, must be a se. Generation of his essence from the Father would obliterate the Son’s aseity, so therefore the Father must generate at most the Son’s person. He took issue not with the Creed’s use of “very God from very God,” necessarily, but with the Nicene Fathers’ own interpretation of it, which would indicate they thought the Son received his very essence from the Father.

So, as I read him, Reymond does not deny eternal generation per se, but only eternal generation of essence.

Reymond surmised that Calvin rejected the implicit subordination in the Nicene language, if not also in its theology. Therefore, for Reymond the language of the creed implies ontic subordination, if not also its theology, which I believe would suggest not just “the Nicene Fathers’ own interpretation of it” but also the very intent of the language.

So, yes, he denied generation of essence, which is a good thing. On that we can be grateful. Notwithstanding, his missteps (or at least his controversial thoughts) were several.

(1) He got the theology of the creed wrong, or else the theology of the creed is heretical. (2) He got Calvin’s credal theology wrong, or else Calvin is at odds with the church’s creed.

Those two points I’m not inclined to debate, but I think the logical options put forth should be uncontroversial.

And thirdly, I believe he missed the eternal generation of the Son altogether. Or did he put forth a theology of eternal generation other than the one he rejected? Sincere question. I might’ve missed it, but it’s my recollection he had no theology of eternal generation (at least in the first addition). By rejecting the eternal generation of the Son’s essence, he did not ipso facto affirm the eternal generation of the Son.

Keep in mind, Reymond strenuously argued that monogenes should not be taken as only begotten but one and only. (Obviously the theology of only begotten doesn’t hang on a single word. And I suppose one can favor “one and only” but also affirm a theology of eternal generation, but did Reymond?)

“Reymond does not deny eternal generation per se”

Well, I think it’s fair to say that given the amount of pages he dedicated to the Trinity, I’d think if he affirmed eternal generation, at least in some sense, it would’ve been made clear somewhere. Maybe I missed it, but all I recall is he affirmed that the person of the Son was autotheos and that we shouldn’t speculate much further than that with respect to origin...

 

[Taylor]

(1) He got the theology of the creed wrong, or else the theology of the creed is heretical. (2) He got Calvin’s credal theology wrong, or else Calvin is at odds with the church’s creed.

Those two points I’m not inclined to debate, but I think the logical options put forth should be uncontroversial.

Reymond is not alone here in his analysis of the Creed or Calvin. Here is Morton Smith's analysis:

"It is of interest to observe the treatment of these concepts by the Nicene theologians (325 A. D.). They sought to define the eternal generation of the Son as follows: first, it was not by creation that Christ is the Son of God. Second, it is not temporal, but eternal. Third, it is not after the manner of human generation. Fourth, it is not by division of essence. After giving these four negations, the following positive speculations are suggested: first, the Father is the beginning, the fountain, the cause, the principle of the being of the Son. Second, the Son thus derives his essence from the Father by eternal and indefinable generation of divine essence from the Father to the Son. Calvin was the first one to challenge these last two speculations. He taught that the Son was a se ipso with regard to his deity. He did not derive his essence from the Father. There is no warrant in the Scripture for the subordination of the Son in his essence to the Father. The same may be said of the Holy Spirit. He is a se ipso as regards his essence" (emphasis added).

—Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1994), 152.​

And John Frame, while not addressing the Creed itself, at least agrees with Reymond on Calvin's position:

"Some claimed that by it the Father communicates to the Son not existence, but the divine nature. Zacharias Ursinus wrote, 'The Son is the second person, because the Deity is communicated to him of the Father by eternal generation.' Calvin, however, attacked that position, arguing that 'whosoever says that the Son has been given his essence from the Father denies that he has being from himself.' [...] According to Calvin, what the Son receives from the Father is not his being, not his divine essence, but his person. [...] I take it that what Calvin is saying is that the Son receives from the Father neither his existence nor his divine nature, but his sonship. He is Son because the Father has made him Son" (emphasis added).

—John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2013), 491-92.​

And B. B. Warfield has a long discussion of Calvin's opposition to Nicaea:

"Although [Calvin] 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. Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless. [...] His meaning appears to be that the act of generation must have been completed from all eternity, since its product has existed complete from all eternity, and therefore it is meaningless to speak of it as continually proceeding. If this is the meaning of his remark, it is a definite rejection of the Nicene speculation of 'eternal generation.' But this is very far from saying that it is a rejection of the Nicene Creed—or even of the assertion in this Creed to the effect that the Son is 'God of God'" (emphasis added).

—Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, vol. 5, 10 vols., The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1932), 427-28.​

Cornelius Van Til, in his Introduction to Systematic Theology, quotes Warfield at length with approval.

And thirdly, I believe he missed the eternal generation of the Son altogether. [...] ...he did not ipso facto affirm the eternal generation of the Son. [...] I think it’s fair to say that given the amount of pages he dedicated to the Trinity, I’d think if he affirmed eternal generation, at least in some sense, it would’ve been made clear somewhere.

This seems to me to be an argument from silence, and quite unfair. Just because someone does not positively affirm something does not mean they deny it. That is fallacious.

Furthermore, it is simply not true to say that Reymond did not explicitly affirm eternal generation at least in some sense. Here is his conclusion to the discussion of the Creed's Christology:

"Christians should ... believe that the Son, as the second Person of the Godhead, derives his hypostatic identity as the Son from the 'generated' relation 'before all ages' which he sustains to God the Father, the first Person of the Godhead (what this means beyond 'order' I cannot say and will not attempt to say), and that the Father precedes the Son by reason of order. This means that there is no essential subordination of the Son to the Father within the Godhead" (italics original; bold-underline added).

—Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998), 335.​

If this is not a direct affirmation of eternal generation of the Son in regard to hypostasis, as opposed to substantia, I don't know what more he could say. He even goes so far as to put the doctrine in an imperative statement: "Christians should believe."

 

[User20004000]

Brother,

I really didn't want to go here...

That Calvin held to the generation of the Son does not mean that he thought the Creed put forth the generation of the essence of the Son. (I know you get that, which is why I'm struggling with your arguments.)

As you must realize, it’s a misstep in reason to conclude that since Calvin held to the generation of the Son that, therefore, he disagreed with the Creed. (That's to argue by false-disjunction given that that the two haven't been shown to be mutually exclusive.) Yet it would appear that you're citing theologians without quotes establishing that the Creed intends or literally conveys generation of essence, which if true would be mutually exclusive to Calvin! But that first has to be proved, not just asserted.

If you're not familiar with Letham on Eternal Generation in the Church Fathers - in particular, his remarks on Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus and how they affirmed generation of person, not essence, you might want to look it up. Also, Letham on his chapter on Calvin in The Holy Trinity, where he forcibly addressed Reymond’s musings about the Creed and the allegation that Calvin disagreed with it, which had much to do with the next addition of Reymond’s ST – the one you quote from.

Regarding your use of Frame, the generation of the eternal essence of the Son is not considered the same thing as the communication of the essence. See Berkof and Hodge, for instance, who teach that not the essence but the Son is generated, and through the generation of the Son, the essence is communicated, not generated. Even Wiki notes it that way. (Just making clear that we have no disagreement there.)

But again, that Calvin affirmed the generation of the Son and rejected the generation of the essence does not imply that he thought the Creed intends generation of essence.

“This seems to me to be an argument from silence, and quite unfair. Just because someone does not positively affirm something does not mean they deny it. That is fallacious.”​

Not all arguments from silence are fallacious. What distinguishes the fallacious ones from the non-fallacious ones is burden of proof. (See Frame DKG) But again, and as I noted, “I think it’s fair to say that given the amount of pages he dedicated to the Trinity, I’d think if he affirmed eternal generation, at least in some sense, it would’ve been made clear somewhere.”

Here's the rub:

So, what you’re telling me is that given his interaction on eternal generation and the meaning of "only begotten," he still might have affirmed some sort of eternal generation but just didn’t see the need to mention it in his Systematic Theology. I could be fine with that if it weren't for two things. First, what you quoted was taken from the 2nd addition, which was after he was schooled on some things, frankly. But more importantly, Reymond in his first addition held to another view than you just quoted - one that implicitly denied generation of person. He even went so far to write:

"Bringing this chapter [on Trinity] to a conclusion, I would contend that the three basic propositions given at the beginning of the preceding chapter are sufficient to express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity."

That which he contends from the beginning is: "(1) there is but one living and true God... (...monotheism); (2) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each fully and equally God (...sameness of divine essence); and (3) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct Persons (...distinctness in subsistence.)"

Note well, what Reymond listed in three summary points is what he called "sufficient" to express the orthodox Trinity. It's no small matter that he believed then that orthodox Trinitarianism can do without the eternal generation of the Son. That, I'm afraid, is horrific. That is precisely what got him in so much hot water. His #3, that the three Persons are distinct, misses a major point of theology proper. The way in which the persons are distinguished is essential to Trinitarian doctrine - it's by paternity, filiation and spiration.

Unbegottenness; Generation; and Procession aren't just theological options. Can a pastor get ordained in a Reformed church while taking exception to such theological tenets? I pray not.

But aside from all that with respect to how Reymond came around on things he denied in his first addition, what’s most important to note is that there is no reason to believe that the historical Christian church is reciting a heretical creed. Nor has it been shown that Calvin thought the Creed was in error. Therefore, we don’t have to choose between Calvin and the Creed. That’s the material point. The two happily comply.

 

[Taylor]

I really didn't want to go here...

Than why start a thread quoting my post? Please don’t be dishonest with me, or imply that I am forcing you to go somewhere you didn’t want to go on a
discussion board.

All your points are well-taken. All I was trying to show is that while you may be passionate about your interpretation of Calvin and the Nicene Fathers, there are serious theologians, no less well-read than you or Letham, who disagree. That is all. And, as far as I’m concerned, the point still stands. You agree with Letham and others, I agree with Warfield, Frame, Smith, Van Til, and probably Murray. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with pretending that this is “uncontroversial” when both the quotes provided and the length and vigor of your response clearly show otherwise.

This is my lost post on this thread, because I frankly do not have the mental energy or the time in the day to spend on this topic. I’m already making myself late for work this morning responding to it.

 

[User20004000]

Than why start a thread quoting my post?”

It wasn’t so much that I was starting a new thread. The moderators did not want a discussion on Reymond continuing in the thread in which it began.

“Please don’t be dishonest with me, or imply that I am forcing you to go somewhere you didn’t want to go on a discussion board.”

I don’t believe I’m being dishonest nor suggesting that I’m being forced to do anything.

“But there is something wrong with pretending that this is ‘uncontroversial’ when both the quotes provided and the length and vigor of your response clearly show otherwise.”

I’m sincerely sorry but there’s a misunderstanding here, which I trust you'll be glad that I can clear up for you. What I said was, “Those two points I’m not inclined to debate, but I think the logical options put forth should be uncontroversial.”

Brother, the options everyone should agree on are: (1) He got the theology of the creed wrong, or else the theology of the creed is heretical. (2) He got Calvin’s creedal theology wrong, or else Calvin is at odds with the church’s creed.

Those two options are uncontroversial – which is to say, the options are both undisputable and uncontended – regardless of whether one favors Reymond or not. In other words, what’s not a point of contention is the logic of 1 and 2. So, if I confused you, I’ll take responsibility. Given this construct, I hope you’ll see that I wasn’t being disingenuous with the uncontroversial remark.

My ONLY concern in all of this is that we may say the creed without confessing heresy. We may do so even without importing some unintended meaning into the creed. That’s all.