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

[JonC]

I have. And you are in denial, in that you refuse actually understand my view. Which I had explained. And simply I am in denial of eternal generation even being Biblical. You have no Biblical text that actually teaches "eternal generation.".And have stated this before. And again here.

You are right that I must have missed it.

Show me by number which you reject:

1. Jesus is eternally Yahweh
2. The Word became flesh
3. Yahweh did not change when the Word became flesh.
4. There is One God in three distinct Persons. This is eternal.
5. The Triune God (Yahweh) is immutable in nature. The Trinity is the Trinity eternally and without change.

1-5 Which do you reject.

 

[37818]

1. Jesus is eternally Yahweh
2. The Word became flesh
3. Yahweh did not change when the Word became flesh.
4. There is One God in three distinct Persons. This is eternal.
5. The Triune God (Yahweh) is immutable in nature. The Trinity is the Trinity eternally and without change.

1-5 Which do you reject.

I reject none of those 5 statements.

 

[JonC]

I reject none of those 5 statements.

You have to of you reject Eternal Generation. There isn't anything else included in the doctrine.

Eternal Generation is the belief that Jesus is eternally the Word, eternally Yahweh, without any change in His divinity, without any change in His identity within the Godhead.



If you believe those 5 points then you do believe Eternal Generation (even if you dislike the title)

If, however, you believe that the Word becoming flesh changed the economy of the Trinity then you do not.

 

[37818]

If you believe those 5 points then you do believe Eternal Generation (even if you dislike the title)

It is your narrative. My view on "eternal generation" is unchanged. It is an extra Biblical myth. It is not real. And was not necessary to my agreement to those 5 points.

 

[JonC]

It is your narrative. My view on "eternal generation" is unchanged. It is an extra Biblical myth. It is not real. And was not necessary to my agreement to those 5 points.

That is false.

It is not my narrative but the doctrine of Eternal Generation.

If I say that I do not believe the Flat Earth theory but I do believe the earth is flat then I would be wrong.

You do believe, by your own admission, Eternal Generation.

You may not believe how those who do not believe Eternal Generation define Eternal Generation.

But you do, by your own admission, believe the doctrine.


It is impossible for you to affirm those 5 points without affirming Eternal Generation.

And those 5 points cover even more.

Eternal Generation is simply that the economy of the Trinity is immutable and eternal.

I have found that often people who strongly oppose doctrines (especially doctrines that are essential to orthodox Christianity) do do because they have heard a misrepresentation or strange version of that doctrine.


Now....there are some who do reject the Doctrine of the Trinity. But if your reply is correct then you are not one of them.

 

[JonC]

@37818

Another example (a better one) is those Baptists who do not know that they are Protestant.

Protestant refers to those groups involved in the Protestant movement. Many of these groups (like the baptistic ones) were a part of the movement but not a part of the Catholic Church. These were considered "radical" by about every other group, but they were a part of the Reformation nonetheless.

Those Baptists think they are not Orotestant because they misunderstand the role of our "spiritual ancestors" and the term "protestant"


But their misunderstanding does not change their identity just as a man thinking he is a woman dies not change his gender.

You believe the doctrine of Eternal Generation. You just cannot come to terms with the fact that you did not understand the actual doctrine (perhaps thinking some extreme version was the doctrine itself). But your misunderstanding does not change reality.

And you should have realized this when you found yourself unable to come up with an element of the doctrine that you reject.

 

[37818]

We as genuine Christians are suppose to actually know God. This apparent disagreement over what I think, I know to be false, is problematic.

 

[Van]

Lol....no. "Generation" in Eternal Generation means "coming forth".

What is the status of this second person before He was put in possession of the whole divine essence?

There was no "before He was put on possession of the whole divine essence".

He IS The Word (coming forth from the Father). Period. Eternally Yahweh.


Eternal Generation means that the Son of God is eternally the Word, "coming forth" from the Father, and eternally Yahweh (without change His divinity), and eternally the whole essence of God without division.

It's purpose was to prevent heresies that diminish His divinity or negate the Trinity.

As such, it simply presents truths of Scrioture about the topic without attempting to explain the "how".

Sorry but your words said he was "put in possession." To claim this means he was "always in possession" is absurd.

Sorta like saying eternal generation means eternal, not generated.

You seem to claim "brought forth" both means eternal generation, and sent by. More absurdity.

In scripture the term "brought forth" is used to refer to being born or "generated." See Job 15:7

The issue is not what the initial purpose that the ambiguous phrase was brought forth, but the fact certainly some use the phrase to mean something other than always existing as the Second Person of the Trinity. If you mean God the Son was sent by the Father, rather than "brought forth" or "eternally generated" by the Father, stop using words that imply something else!

 

[JonC]

Sorry but your words said he was "put in possession." To claim this means he was "always in possession" is absurd.

Sorta like saying eternal generation means eternal, not generated.

You seem to claim "brought forth" both means eternal generation, and sent by. More absurdity.

In scripture the term "brought forth" is used to refer to being born or "generated." See Job 15:7

The issue is not what the initial purpose that the ambiguous phrase was brought forth, but the fact certainly some use the phrase to mean something other than always existing as the Second Person of the Trinity. If you mean God the Son was sent by the Father, rather than "brought forth" or "eternally generated" by the Father, stop using words that imply something else!

Except for the "eternally" part you'd have a point.

You are trying very hard to negate a doctrine that has been the standard for orthodoxy for 2k years.

You do so by measuring antiquated language with a modern standard.


You are wrong. Period. The point is that to deny Eternal Generation is a heresy. It is actually to deny God (in doctrine).

But with the difficulty of the topic and the difficulty of the language this is often overlooked and we still consider those who deny the doctrine to be Christian.

And probably rightly so, because their denial is out of ignorance.

The doctrine was to guard against heresy. It cannot be worked out like you are trying to work our.

Logically God cannot be One God in Three Persons, distinct and yet indivisable.

logically Jesus can't "eternally come forth" from the Father because "comming forth" (Generation) implies a beginning.

But Eternal Generation says that the Word "eternally comes forth from the Father".



That means the Word is eternal and immutable (always coming forth....no change....no start to come forth).


You are wrong.

 

[JonC]

We as genuine Christians are suppose to actually know God. This apparent disagreement over what I think, I know to be false, is problematic.

It is problematic because it is merely an apparent disagreement.

When you say "I deny Eternal Generation" the Chriatian response will always be to think you are not a true Christian and that you are spreading false doctrine (a threat to congregations).

BUT when you affirm that you actually believe the doctrine then that concern is put to rest.


I guess the difference is in the asking.

If I ask "Do you believe Eternal Generation" vs "Do you believe the divine relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is eternal" I may get two different answers although the questions are identical.

 

[37818]

What the Trinity means, three distinct Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one and the same God, co-eternal. Not parts of God, are God.

Now the Son of God is both someone other than God and equal with God, John 5:18, . . . Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[37818]

It is problematic because it is merely an apparent disagreement.

When you say "I deny Eternal Generation" the Chriatian response will always be to think you are not a true Christian and that you are spreading false doctrine (a threat to congregations).

BUT when you affirm that you actually believe the doctrine then that concern is put to rest.


I guess the difference is in the asking.

If I ask "Do you believe Eternal Generation" vs "Do you believe the divine relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is eternal" I may get two different answers although the questions are identical.

Worse than a mere disagreement. Some one in this argument has lower view of the LORD God. Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

[JonC]

What the Trinity means, three distinct Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one and the same God, co-eternal. Not parts of God, are God.

Now the Son of God is both someone other than God and equal with God, John 5:18, . . . Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Exactly.

The Son IS God, the Fatger IS God, the Spirit IS God. God is One. The Son, Father, and Spirit are distinct Persons.

The Father and Son are One, but the Son is not the Father.

The purpose of Eternal Generation is not to explain the logic of how Jesus is eternally the Word, eternally Yahweh, eternally immutable within the Godhead.

The purpose is simply to state those truths in order to guard against heresy.


Christians differ on how the Trinity works, but the Doctrine of the Trinity and, regarding Christ, the part of that doctrine called Eternal Generation simply puts those Biblical truths in one doctrine as a standard (a line not to cross).

 

[JonC]

Worse than a mere disagreement. Some one in this argument has lower view of the LORD God. Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

I agree that to deny Eternal Generation is to lower Yahweh upon the Incarnation. To deny that doctrine is to say that the very nature of the One Triune God changed when the Word became flesh.

Eternal Generation maintains that the Word remains the Word. Through Him all things came into being. The Word was with God and was God, was in the beginning with God.

The Incarnation did not mean the Word ceased coming forth from the Father (or the 1st Person of the Trinity).

In fact, with the Incarnation we see the beginning of a new creation (whereby we become new creations in Christ, and Christ the Firstborn of many brethren).

And this parallels the first. God sends the Word. Through the Word we are recreated. And the Spirit embodies us as God's children.


But I absolutely agree that those who genuinely (not out of ignorance) reject Eternal Generation have a low view of of the One True God. They make the economy of the Trinity changeable and unreliable.

 

[37818]

Christians differ on how the Trinity works, but the Doctrine of the Trinity and, regarding Christ, the part of that doctrine called Eternal Generation simply puts those Biblical truths in one doctrine as a standard (a line not to cross).

The "Eternal Generation" is at the center of our disagreement.

Until you can actually understand the reasons why it must be rejected, you are not going to be able understand why this disagreement cannot be reconciled.

At best it falls into an must agree to disagree.

 

[JonC]

The "Eternal Generation" is at the center of our disagreement.

Until you can actually understand the reasons why it must be rejected, you are not going to be able understand why this disagreement cannot be reconciled.

At best it falls into an must agree to disagree.

I think it is important to speak plainly.

You could just tell me what part of the Doctrine you reject.

To narrow it down (we are talking about one point in the Doctrine of the Trinity - only one sentence), Eternal Generation is -

The Word becoming flesh did not alter the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.


Or

The Word eternally comes forth from God. This did not change with the Incarnation.



Plainly state your rejection.

 

[37818]

I agree that to deny Eternal Generation is to lower Yahweh upon the Incarnation.

It is the false notion of "generation" this very term which denies the very identity of being Yehwah. The incarnation was the act of the Son of Yehwah. Proverbs 30:4, John 1:2-3, John 1:14.

 

[37818]

John 1:1-3, . . . and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Isaiah 43:11, I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

[JonC]

It is the false notion of "generation" this very term which denies the very identity of being Yehwah. The incarnation was the act of the Son of Yehwah. Proverbs 30:4, John 1:2-3, John 1:14.

So your disagreement is that the Second Person of the Trinity (the Word or Son) "eternally comes forth from" the First Person of the Trinity (the Father).

My argument is that Yahweh is eternal, and the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity never changes.

Do you have any Biblical evidence to support a change in relationship between the Persons of the Trinity?

 

[JonC]

John 1:1-3, . . . and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Isaiah 43:11, I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Yes, we all agree with those verses.

And these may address the Trinity, but not the aspect of Eternal Generation.


In the OT we see the Word "coming forth" as explained by John. We see this in the calling of Abraham, the calling of Moses, the giving of the Law, the Presence in the Tabernacle.

We see this same Yehwah in the Word be coming flesh. The Son comes forth from the Father.


Do you have any Biblical evidence that the Incarnation changed the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity?