Featured Is the Doctrine of the Trinity wrong? (Eternal Generation/ eternally begotten)

Eternal Generation was a response to heresies involving the equality of the Son and the Father and is based on the idea that the Son is eternal.

The doctrine is that Jesus did not become the Son of God at his birth to Mary but was and is always the Son of God.

The difference between your revision is it omits the idea that Jesus existed as God's Son or the Word (that role in the Trinity) ftom eternity past.

The reason it was important at the time was to address heresies that were creating into the faith.


I agree that a more modern rewright would be good.

@37818 can't get past the use of "generation" (it carries a bit of a different meaning out of Christology...it'd be like using a KJV instead of a version in our vernacular).

And "begotten" is unclear to us today as well. We think of physical birth, or a beginning.


I think "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" is a good summary. But then we have to unpack "word".

 

It is a term Christians use to describe the relationship between the Father and Son within the Trinity, and in that sense (like the word "trinity") it was developed at some point in time.

But it is not a nonsense term. It is a term that is used to describe something very percise - the eternal nature of the Son.


"Eternal" means exiating without beginning or end. "Generation" refers to the relationship of "Son".

Put together it means that Jesus is eternally the Son of God.


Now....just saying you don't like the term is silly.

Tell us what part of Jesus being the eternal Son of God you reject.

 

Dude....we all know that "eternal Son of God", like "Doctrine of the Trinity" and "Bible" is an extra Biblical term.

I know there are many different, but unorthodox, views of the Trinity.

Now you are answering my question. Thanks.

You do not believe that God sent His Son into the World but that the Word (Who held a different position than going forth from God) became the Son.

BUT we are just talking about Word choices.

How did Jesus' role within the Trinity change when the Word became flesh?


This is important because Eternal Generation holds that the Word is the same role as the Son of God. So in the OT those who believe Eternal Generation see man's interaction with God as Christophanies.

 

I'm actually dealing with one (the orthodox position). I am trying to deal with two - and just regarding Jesus' nature within the Trinity changing vs Eternal Generation.

Plus I'm at work and not much going on here (I can't go in a CA for another day....had 7 stitches last Sunday when I ran into an electrical pannel).

 

I think people could nitpick at anything.

"Son" can imply "begotten" or "adopted". But you add "divinely" which woukd e plain it to me (not sure about others).

I'm not sure about "uniquely divine". Is there a divine but not unique?

 

Here is the issue,

Eternal Generation refers to the idea that the Second Person of the Trinity "eternally (eternal) comes forth (generation) from the 1st Person of the Trinity.

This relationship is "the Word" (God coming forth from God) or "the Son" (God coming forth from God).

You cannot say that you believe the Word is eternal but deny Eternal Generation because those things are the same.

The Word is the same relational concept.

You are affirming and denying the same thing.

 

You do not understand the word "orthodox".

That said, the Word being Eternal IS a Biblical truth. Read Psalm 19:4, John 1.