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

[JonC]

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

Not the issue.

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

Yep. It can be orthodox and unbiblical. But not a lie.

That said, I view your denial that the Word is eternal to be unbiblical. I'm not saying you ate lying, just that you hold an unbiblical doctrine.

John 1 says that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was with God.

In your belief, how exactly did Jesus' relationship in the Trinity change when He ceased being the Word and became the Son of God?

How did God send His Son into the World if no Son existed to be sent into the World?


Now, if you want to say that Eternal Generation is unbiblical then you need to PROVE it unbiblical. You have not even come close to doing so.


As for me, I think I'll stick to traditional Christianity and continue believing in the eternal Word, the eternal Son of God and an immutable God in three Persons.

 

[JonC]

Not the issue.

wait....you are wrong here. This IS the ONLY issue.

Eternal Generation is the teaching that the Word is eternal (this relationship within the Trinity, "coming forth", is eternal).

If you have not been talking against Eternal Generation then what on earth have you been arguing against??

 

[37818]

That said, I view your denial that the Word is eternal to be unbiblical.

A false accusation. The Word is explicitly "was God." God is eternal.

It seems cannot correctly present my view.

 

[37818]

Eternal Generation . . .

Not anywhere in the word of God.

 

[JonC]

A false accusation. The Word is explicitly "was God." God is eternal.

It seems cannot correctly present my view.

???

The "Word" as a title refers to the wisdom or mind of God proceeding or coming forth. Kinda like we use words (not exactly, but related). This is what "generation" means. The Word or Son revealing the mind of the Father.

Eather you believe that Jesus exists eternally as this Person of the Trinity, with this relationship within the Trinity, or you do not.

You keep posting that you believe Eternal Generation by the definition of the term while at the same time stating that you deny Eternal Generation.

That does not make sence.

We all agree that Jesus, as man, was born a human being begotten of God and in this became the Son of God.

BUT that is not the topic here. We are talking about the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.


If you truly reject Eternal Generation thats fine, but then tell us in what ways Jesus' relationship AS GOD changed with the Incarnation within the Godhead.

 

[Silverhair]

As for the question:
"Does the Doctrine of the Trinity need to be reworked (is the traditional view wrong)?"

One person has said it needs to be reworked. I am curious as to what has to be reworked?

If the Father is God, the Son is God & the Holy Spirit is God where is the problem?

From what I have read in this post it just comes down to what words are used. It seems like this is a tempest in a teapot.

Does anyone here think that the Son and Holy Spirit are created beings? Do you not think they are eternal?

Since it seems to be a fight over words used then what do you suggest?

 

[JonC]

As for the question:
"Does the Doctrine of the Trinity need to be reworked (is the traditional view wrong)?"

One person has said it needs to be reworked. I am curious as to what has to be reworked?

If the Father is God, the Son is God & the Holy Spirit is God where is the problem?

From what I have read in this post it just comes down to what words are used. It seems like this is a tempest in a teapot.

Does anyone here think that the Son and Holy Spirit are created beings? Do you not think they are eternal?

Since it seems to be a fight over words used then what do you suggest?

I get that the titles of doctrines can be a confusion.

We have terms like Eternal Generation, Kenosis, Hypostatic Union, Trinity, Soteriology, Pneumatology, apophatic theology, beatitudes, creato ex nihilo.....the list goes on.


Would it be better to say "the study of the Spirit" instead of Pneumatology?

If talking to somebody who has no theological background, maybe it would.

But at the same time I think you risk doctrine in an attempt to make theology more accessible.

I don't mean that theology should not be accessible, but that it should not be treated as common.

Also, these are the proper titles.

Think of any other area that requires study. How woukd you like your doctor saying "looks like you have thing a mebobs in your blood."?


Mainly, though, terms like Eternal Generation addressed heresies at a specific time in history (here, to correct doctrine that the Son is not eternally God).

 

[JonC]

@Silverhair

I think the easiest definition would be:

God (Yahweh) the Father, God (Yahweh) the Son/ Word, and God (Yahweh) the Spirit are One. One God (Yahweh) in three Persons.

God is eternal, not changing in nature.

The Father is eternally the Father. The Word is eternally the Word. The Spirit is eternally the Spirit. These three Persons are One God.

The Word (Yahweh) became flesh. But the Word never ceased being God (Yahweh). As God the Son's divine relationship within the Trinity is eternal and unchanging.

For a title.....I like Eternal Generation but it is most commonly called eternally begotten today. I can't think of a more modern title.

 

[37818]

If you truly reject Eternal Generation thats fine, but then tell us in what ways Jesus' relationship AS GOD changed with the Incarnation within the Godhead.

What was the change per John 1:14? . . . 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.

 

[37818]

The three views of the Son of God in the Trinity.

1) Eternal Son of God is dependent on eternal generation.
2) No eternal Sonship prior to the incarnation. No eternal generation.
3) Eternal Son of God is the Eternal Son of God being Yahweh. No eternal generation.

 

[JonC]

The three views of the Son of God in the Trinity.

1) Eternal Son of God is dependent on eternal generation.
2) No eternal Sonship prior to the incarnation. No eternal generation.
3) Eternal Son of God is the Eternal Son of God being Yahweh. No eternal generation.

The list is wrong.

#1 is not a real view.
#2 is a real view.
#3 IS eternal generation.

Eternal Generation is the idea that the Son of God is eternal and is YHWH. That's all.

Now, if you mean that YHWH is not the triune God (that the Father and Spirit are excluded) then you deny the Doctrine of the Trinity while affirming Eternal Generation.

You seem to be trying very hard to hold an unorthodox view here. If you cannot say that the Father, Son and Spirit are God, the One God YHWH, then you have succeeded. But that is a denial of the Doctrine of the Trinity, not Eternal Generation.

 

[37818]

.

The list is wrong.

#1 is not a real view.
#2 is a real view.
#3 IS eternal generation.

Where is my view? You disallow it?

I honestly do not know whether or not you even understand my view. I came to my Biblical view on this issue over 34 years ago.

I firmly deny the concept of eternal generation as not Biblical.

You have no Biblical text for eternal generation. Waiting.

 

[JonC]

.

Where is my view? You disallow it?

I honestly do not know whether or not you even understand my view. I came to my Biblical view on this issue over 34 years ago.

I firmly deny the concept of eternal generation as not Biblical.

You have no Biblical text for eternal generation. Waiting.

Do I disallow your view? No. You made the list. You should have included your view.

I do not think anybody can understand your view except you. And that is fine. As long as you understand it that is all that matters.

But yes, I have absolutely no clue what your view is.

My view is that the Eternal Son of God (i.e., Eternal Generation) is the Eternal Son of God being Yahweh. But also that the three Persons of the Trinity (Father, Son and Spirit are distinct Persons of the One true God, Yahweh.

Eternal Generation can be summed up as "in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

It is supported by John 1:1-3.

 

[37818]

Dr Walter Martin, author of the book the Kingdom of the Cults

 

[JonC]

Dr Walter Martin, author of the book the Kingdom of the Cults

I think I see the problem. You are learning about a doctrine from somebody who disagrees with that doctrine.

I did enjoy Martin's cult book, but he has also been criticized for his own deficiencies regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I understand that you do not believe in the Eternal Son of God. That is fine with me (we are responsible for our own beliefs).

The problem, however, is that Eternal Generation speaks of Jesus relationship within the Trinity. Here "son" carries the same meaning as "word" (coming forth).

Denying Eternal Generation is the exact same as denying the Eternal Word. It is denying not only the Eternal Son (Word) but also the Eternal Father. In essence, it nullifies the Trinity.

Genesis 1 testifies to Eternal Generation. God said and it was...and His Spirit hovered over the waters. God the Father, God the Son (Word) and God the Spirit. One God, Yahweh.

 

[JonC]

A theological reason to accept Eternal Generation is also simple- God is immutable.

From a divine perspective, a change in Jesus' relationship within the Trinity would mean an ontological change in God. God the Father and God the Son would now have a beginning starting at the Incarnation.

But this is obviously avoided because the Jesus being the Word is relationally the same as Jesus being God's Son within the Trinity.

The only change, therefore, is the Word becoming flesh (the reconciliation of man and God in the Person of Christ).

 

[percho]

Is eternal even possible relative to γίνομαι ?

 

[Silverhair]

I get that the titles of doctrines can be a confusion.

We have terms like Eternal Generation, Kenosis, Hypostatic Union, Trinity, Soteriology, Pneumatology, apophatic theology, beatitudes, creato ex nihilo.....the list goes on.


Would it be better to say "the study of the Spirit" instead of Pneumatology?

If talking to somebody who has no theological background, maybe it would.

But at the same time I think you risk doctrine in an attempt to make theology more accessible.

I don't mean that theology should not be accessible, but that it should not be treated as common.

Also, these are the proper titles.

Think of any other area that requires study. How woukd you like your doctor saying "looks like you have thing a mebobs in your blood."?


Mainly, though, terms like Eternal Generation addressed heresies at a specific time in history (here, to correct doctrine that the Son is not eternally God).

I may have given the wrong impression. I have no problem with the Doctrine of the Trinity. I just wonder why some people seem to have a problem accepting the Trinity. What word would they like us to use to describe the relationship between the Father and Christ. I just wonder how 37818 would describe it.

Since God is eternal and we know that the Father, Christ & the Holy Spirit are God then are eternal. Since we know that there is no other God beside Him then we know that there is only one God. Our finite minds may have a problem understanding this we just have to accept it as truth. Well at least I do.

 

[37818]

Genesis 1 testifies to Eternal Generation.

LOL. Teaches no such teaching.

 

[37818]

I think I see the problem. You are learning about a doctrine from somebody who disagrees with that doctrine.

I did enjoy Martin's cult book, but he has also been criticized for his own deficiencies regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I understand that you do not believe in the Eternal Son of God. That is fine with me (we are responsible for our own beliefs).

The problem, however, is that Eternal Generation speaks of Jesus relationship within the Trinity. Here "son" carries the same meaning as "word" (coming forth).

Denying Eternal Generation is the exact same as denying the Eternal Word. It is denying not only the Eternal Son (Word) but also the Eternal Father. In essence, it nullifies the Trinity.

The Bible doesn't teach eternal generation.
On that point I agree with Dr. Walter Martin.. Even though it is true the term "Eternal" Son does not occur in the Bible. I never agreed with his rejection of the second Person of the Trinity always being the Son of God. Proverbs 30:4, John.1:18, Son, Genesis 12:7 etc.