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

[JonC]

LOL. Teaches no such teaching.

It does.

God spoke.
Through the Word all things were made.

 

[JonC]

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.

It actually does. The problem is you (and Martin) confuse the word "son" with the Incarnation (a different topic).

Eternal Generation is not dealing with Jesus as man (the Incarnation) but Jesus as God (His divinity and relationship in the Trinity).


You insist that Jesus' relationship within the Trinity changed at the Incarnation, but you have failed to prove that by Scripture.

Eternal Generation is the truth that Jesus us Eternally the Word - by being born as God's Son His relationship as YHWH within the Trinity did not change.

Eternal Generation is the ONLY view that presents YHWH as Eternal in the sense YHWH does not change (the Trinity remains constant).

 

[37818]

God spoke.
Through the Word all things were made.

Your understand here is wrong being convoluted.
The written words of God are not a person.

 

[37818]

Eternal Generation is the truth . . .

Not according to the written word of God. Absolutely not holy. Illogical nonsense.

 

[JonC]

Your understand here is wrong being convoluted.
The written words of God are not a person.

??

God did not write Creation into existence.

What on earth are you talking about????

 

[JonC]

Not according to the written word of God. Absolutely not holy. Illogical nonsense.

No, Eternal Generation is Biblical.

The problem is you developed your understanding over 30 years ago. God Himself can (and has) told you that it is wrong but we both know you will not be persuaded.

You insist that YHWH is not Eternal but changes in nature (the opposite of Eternal Generation).

Prove that the nature of God (of the Trinity) has changed.

 

[JonC]

@37818

This is getting old. Let's settle it once and for all.

Eternal Generation is that YHWH is eternal in divine nature.

Jesus remained Yahweh, without change in this respect.

Jesus being born in the flesh as the Son of God DID NOT change His Divine nature and identity in the Godhead.


Either the nature of the Trinity changed or it did not.

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that the nature of the Trinity did not change with the Incarnation.

You reject that doctrine.

Show us in Scripture that the Incarnation is a change in the nature of the Trinity.

Show us in Scripture that the Incarnation means Jesus' divine nature as Yahweh, in the Godhead, was changed.

You will not change my mind because too many passages are against you. God does not change. But I am interested in understanding the view you came up with all those years ago.

 

[37818]

Eternal Generation is that YHWH is eternal in divine nature.

In no way.

 

[37818]

The concept of eternal generation is illogical.
A process of generation is a finite activity. Eternal to mean it has no beginning. Which logically means the same thing as never occurring.

 

[JonC]

In no way.

This proves you fo mot understand the doctrine.

You need to study doctrines from those who affirm them instead of from those who reject them in order to prevent this mistake.

It was an easily avoidable error.

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that the Son IS eternally Yahweh.

The Word became flesh, but this did not equate to a change in the Trinity.

Jesus' divine nature and place within the Godhead DID NOT change.


That is the Biblical truth you are trying to argue gainst.

So argue against it legitimately.

Show us how Yahweh is not eternally immutable in nature.

Tell us how the nature of the Trinity was altered by the Incarnation.

If you cannot then you have no ground to stand on. You just reject the orthodox Christian faith to rebel against Scripture.


By your replies you seem to actually believe Eternal Generation. You just do not seem to understand the doctrine.

The reason I say this is you respond by affirming Eternal Generation while stating you font believe it.

And when faced with the doctrine you can only reply with "no way".


The point of Eternal Generation IS that Yahweh is eternal and did not change when the Word became flesh.

 

[37818]

One has to falsely accuse, a Biblical Trinitarian who believes in the eternal Son of God, who honestly must deny the concept of eternal generation, to disallow this view.

The concept of eternal generation has no Biblical basis.

 

[canadyjd]

…..

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

I don’t think he is saying that the Second person within the Godhead “ceased” being the Word when He was born of flesh.

The problem, I think, is viewing God as not being three distinct persons until the Father “eternally” generated the Second and Third persons from His essence.

Has God always existed as three distinct persons within the Godhead, or did the Father, at some point when only He existed (even before time existed) “generate” the Second and Third persons from His essence?

Deep in the weeds beyond our understanding and probably not wise to speculate as speculation can certainly lead to heresy.

peace to you

 

[37818]

Tell us how the nature of the Trinity was altered by the Incarnation.

The Word changed form not being part of His creation to becoming part of His creation. Per John 1:2-3 and John 1:14.

The Word who is God the uncaused Creator did not cease being God the uncaused Creator.

 

[JonC]

I don’t think he is saying that the Second person within the Godhead “ceased” being the Word when He was born of flesh.

The problem, I think, is viewing God as not being three distinct persons until the Father “eternally” generated the Second and Third persons from His essence.

Has God always existed as three distinct persons within the Godhead, or did the Father, at some point when only He existed (even before time existed) “generate” the Second and Third persons from His essence?

Deep in the weeds beyond our understanding and probably not wise to speculate as speculation can certainly lead to heresy.

peace to you

Ahhhhhh.....Thanks. Now I can see it. I assumed @37818 held the Doctrine of the Trinity with the exception of Eternal Generation. And since he kept repeating Eternal Generation points as his view I did not make that connection.

I believe Genesis disproves his theory. The reason is we see the Trinity at work (God speaking, it bring done through that Word, and the movement of the Spirit).

I hold the understanding that the Trinity is eternal (Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession). I do so because I see this all over Scripture (Creation, the giving of the Law, etc.). I believe that we do have Christophanies. I also believe that the Word was with God and was God, and that God sent His Son into the World. Also, I believe that the Doctrine of the Trinity prevents heresies regarding the Godhead.

Is there a name for the doctrine that the One God became three Persons?

 

[JonC]

The Word changed form not being part of His creation to becoming part of His creation. Per John 1:2-3 and John 1:14.

The Word who is God the uncaused God the Creator did not cease being God the uncaused Creator.

That is not a change in the nature of God (between the Persons of the Trinity).

@canadyjd helped me out. I think k I understand your position.

The problem I have with it are passages like John 1. The Word was God and the Word was with God. I believe this affirms distinct Persons in One God. In Genesis we also have the Spirit moving.

So while I reject the idea that God became a trinity, and I view that as a denial (obviously) of the Doctrine of the Trinity, I grant you are not rejecting that Jesus is God.


The difference between our beliefs is simply that I believe in an eternally triune God.

 

[robycop3]

As Baptists we are not creedal Christians. At the same time, we often define our doctrines by creeds as a historical representation of orthodoxy.

The Doctrine of rhe Trinity is expressed primarily in three creeds. The most often used is the Chalcedonian to express orthodox Christianity in regard to the Persons of the Godhead.

One important fact is that to deny one part is to deny the whole (it is to hold a different doctrine).

Another fact is that we, as Baptists, are not bound to creeds. On this board one must be a trinitarian, but I know of no rule that demands we acceot the Doctrine of the Trinity.

@37818 has suggested that a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity is wrong, and @SavedByGrace has called the Doctrine of the Trinity a heresy ftom Satan (for its section regarding eternal generation).

••• Neither deny the Triune God...both seem to be trinitarian..., but both reject the orthodox doctrine, the traditiinal view of Christians about the Persons of the Trinity.

The issue here is Eternal Generation (the Word as eternally begotten of the Father).

This issue arises at times. For example, John Owen wrote a defence for Eternal Generation against the Socinians.

I am opening this up for discussion.


For reference:

Athanasian

He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time;

Nicean

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,

Chalcedonian

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Creeds aside, Scripture proves the Trinity, in the story of Jesus' baptism, and salls each Member God in various places. That's ALL I hafta say about it.

 

[37818]

Is there a name for the doctrine that the One God became three Persons?

God did not become what He always was.

 

[JonC]

Creeds aside, Scripture proves the Trinity, in the story of Jesus' baptism, and salls each Member God in various places. That's ALL I hafta say about it.

I agree.

I think the argument has become whether God is the Eternal triune God or if He became a triune God.

My belief is that the Trinity is Eternal and therefore the position or roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal.

 

[JonC]

God did not become what He always was.

You say that the Second Person of the Trinity changed within the Trinity. That is becoming something different.

 

[Van]

Eternal Generation is false doctrine.

The vague and ambiguous phrase "came forth from God or the Father" appears in 5 verses in the gospel written by John, verse 8:42, 16:27, 16:28, 16:30 and 17:8.

All of these refer to God the Father sending the eternally existing (with no beginning) God the Son (Logos) to be God incarnate.

The absurd effort to read an origination into this phrase is contradicted time and again in scripture, such as John 1:1.

God the Father's spiritual eternal essence did not subdivide into one, two or three "Persons" such as to establish "Eternal Generation." Full Stop.