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

[37818]

Eternal Generation . . .

Is a made up nonsense term.

 

[Van]

John 1:14 (NKJV)
And the Word became 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.

Or:

And t he Word became flesh and dwelt among us, we beheld His glory, the glory of the uniquely divine from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[JonC]

The use of the word "begotten" as in "eternally begotten" is nonsense, as the meaning of the phrase is "not begotten."

I am not sure if my understanding of the doctrine of "eternal generation" mirrors the view of JonC, but I think it is a bogus doctrine, assuming my understanding is valid.

I believe in the doctrine of "eternal existence" whereby at no time did the three Persons of the Trinity not exist as separate and equal Persons. So the effort to have the "essence of God divide into separate entities, thus the essence always (eternally) existing but the Second Person coming forth from the First is wrong.

Basically, I believe the errant view of the Trinity arises from an effort by people to require that the "Father" act to produce the "Son" in accord with human biology.

Lets consider the Nicene Creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

And here is a proposed rewrite:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the uniquely divine Son of God, eternally existing with the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, eternally existing, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

​

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".

 

[JonC]

Is a made up nonsense term.

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.

 

[37818]

You keep indicating that you do not believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God . . . .

No.

. . . eternal Son of God (Eternal Generaton).

First, the term "eternal Son" of God is an extra Biblical term.

There is a Trinity view where the Word became the Son in the incarnation per Luke 1:35.

Here we are looking at three of the Trinity views.

 

[37818]

We need to slow down here.

We are dealing with at least three different views of the Son of God in the Trinity!

 

[Van]

John 1:18 (NKJV)
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Or:

No one has seen God at any time. The uniquely divine Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained the Father.

 

[JonC]

No.

First, the term "eternal Son of God is an extra Biblical term.

There is a Trinity view where the Word became the Son in the incarnation per Luke 1:35.

Here we are looking at three of the Trinity views.

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.

 

[JonC]

We need to slow down here.

We are dealing with at least three different views of the Son of God in the Trinity!

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).

 

[Van]

SNIP

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) from eternity past.
SNIP
.

I think that eternally existing is a basic doctrine of the three Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus not a revision of the main stream doctrine.

 

[Van]

Act 13:33 (NKJV) “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’

Or

Today I have Fathered You, referring to Christ's incarnation, rather than His origination. Note "begotten" is a very different Greek word from that In John 1:14 and John 1:18.

 

[JonC]

John 1:18 (NKJV)
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Or:

No one has seen God at any time. The uniquely divine Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained the Father.

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?

 

[Van]

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?

What makes Jesus unique? The reason is He is God incarnate! Thus the intended message, according to my understanding is Jesus is uniquely divine.

 

[37818]

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.

A confusing statement. Not my view.
My view is Biblical and simple.

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

I do not agree with the question.
Doesn't fit my view.
Isaiah 43:11.

 

[37818]

Biblical is what is truely orthodox.

 

[JonC]

A confusing statement. Not my view.
My view is Biblical and simple.
I do not agree with the question.
Doesn't fit my view.
Isaiah 43:11.

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.

 

[JonC]

Biblical is what is truely orthodox.

You do not understand the word "orthodox".

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

 

[37818]

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

The Persons of the Trinity being the LORD{YHWH} God is the Biblical position, Proverbs 8:22, Isaiah 43:11.

 

[37818]

Eternal Generation refers . . . .

Not even Biblical.

Note, Psalms 2:7 refers to the post incarnation resurrection of Christ.

 

[37818]

You do not understand the word "orthodox".

Then it is a lie, and a denial of written word of God.

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

Not the issue.

There remains the three views of the "eternal" Son of God.