What Difference Does It Make?

[JonC]

The concept of eternal generation is claiming a cause [generation] without a beginning, which is conceptually contrary to being Yahweh who is being without cause.

No, it is not claiming a cause. It is a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

It is an important aspect of the Nicene and Chalcedon Creeds.

And is expressed in the following creeds:

Westminster Confession
1689 Baptist Confession
New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833)
First London Confession of 1636
London Baptist Confession of 1644
(To name a few)

People challenging eternal generation is a relatively new phenomenon. I think it is because so many study tools are easily avaliable and people mix them up with modern or secular ideas/ definitions.

Eternal Generation is the idea that Jesus is the Word, and that He "goes out from" the Father. His position in the Trinity is eternal.

People who believe this doctrine typically believe in what is called "Christophanies", that is encounters with Jesus....or the Word... in the OT.



If you disagree with the Doctrine of the Trinity on this issue, exactly how do you believe Jesus' position within the Trinity changed?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I did not say it was correct, only that it is the orthodox Chriatian view of the Son within the Trinity and was codified Nicene Creed and is a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

That said, you are wrong. In fact, you are the heretic here (you reject the Doctrine of the Trinity).

Had you said it is "unbiblical" you could have made an argument. Saying orthodox Christianity is "heresy" is stupid (orthodoxy defines heresy).

Here is the doctrine in full:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through him all things were made.

It is also upheld in the Chalcedon Creed.

And is expressed in the following creeds:

Westminster Confession
1689 Baptist Confession
New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833)
First London Confession of 1636
London Baptist Confession of 1644
Even the Synod of Dort

So obviously you are wrong about the doctrine being a heresy. It is orthodox Christianity


That does not necessarily mean it is Biblical.


In its basic form all Eternal Generation means is that Jesus is the Word - eternally. His position within the Trinity did not change.


Since you reject the doctrine as "heresy", please explain why John said that Jesus was the Word EVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH.

Explain how Jesus' position within the Trinity changed so that He became the Word.

Jon you don't even know what you are talking about!

Pure ignorance on your part!

Check the history of these creeds wording and you will see that the Nicene creed is taken from the creed of Esebius the historian who was a follower of the arch heretic Arius

Bet you never knew that!

The words God out of God. Light out of Light were used to show that Jesus Christ in the Eternal Godhead is INFERIOR to the Father as God. This makes Jesus Christ LESS than God!

 

[JonC]

The concept of eternal generation is claiming a cause [generation] without a beginning, which is conceptually contrary to being Yahweh who is being without cause.

If you want to read about the doctrine before rejecting it, Legionier Ministries has several articles defending it from modern attacks. RC Sproul has one article there describing it is a necessary doctrine (to reject it is to reject the Doctrine of the Trinity).

 

[JonC]

Jon you don't even know what you are talking about!

Pure ignorance on your part!

Check the history of these creeds wording and you will see that the Nicene creed is taken from the creed of Esebius the historian who was a follower of the arch heretic Arius

Bet you never knew that!

I probably studied creeds more than you ever thought about (not because I wanted to).

That said, the Eternal Generation is an essential aspect of the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedon Creed, Westminster Confession
1689 Baptist Confession, New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833), First London Confession of 1636, London Baptist Confession of 1644, (To name a few).

So if anybody has departed from orthodox faith, it is you. The Dooctrine of the Trinity is orthodox. To reject the it is unorthodox.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The concept of eternal generation is claiming a cause [generation] without a beginning, which is conceptually contrary to being Yahweh who is being without cause.

It was formulated by the HERETIC Origen who denied that Jesus Christ is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH

But some will argue for the sake of it while they actually know ZILCH

 

[JonC]

The words God out of God. Light out of Light were used to show that Jesus Christ in the Eternal Godhead is INFERIOR to the Father as God. This makes Jesus Christ LESS than God!

You do not understand.

The issue is NOT about superiority.

It is about different roles within the Trinity.

The Father is not the Word.
The Son is the Word.

What you reject the is that the Son is ETERNALLY the Word.

Read the Doctrine of the Trinity in full before you reject it. You will find your issues are addressed.

 

[JonC]

It was formulated by the HERETIC Origen who denied that Jesus Christ is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH

It was codified in the Nicene Creed and carried over in the Chalcedon Creed. It is an important part of the Doctrine of the Trinity (a doctrine you reject....although perhaps accept im parts that tickle your ears).

Eternal generation is PART of a doctrine. It also states eternally God (YHWH).

I do not know where you went to seminary, but you should ask for a refund. You should know these things from even undergrad theogy courses.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No one has written more than myself on any of the forums that I am on about the Trinity as being One Godhead and Three distinct coequal Persons, the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

And some slander me by making FALSE ACCUSATIONS about what I believe

I am owed an apology

Please do not edit what I write

 

[JonC]

No one has written more than myself on any of the forums that I am on about the Trinity as being One Godhead and Three distinct coequal Persons, the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

You did not pay attention.

I never said that you rejected those things.

I said you reject PARTS of the Doctrine if the Trinity.

You reject that the Son is eternally the Word, that His position or role within the Trinity is eternal.


The Doctrinity of the Trinity is more than the Trinity being One Godhead and Three distinct coequal Persons, the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

It includes the positions of each Person of the Trinity being eternal. The Word is eternally an expression of the Father (through the Word all things are made and exist).

You are trinitarian in that you believe God in three persons. But you do reject the Doctrine of the Trinity.

From your posts, probably out of a lack of understanding of terms or theogy.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not true.

 

[JonC]

Not true.

Now you are being silly. Own up to your beliefs instead of trying to tear down orthodox doctrines.

I'll highlight the part you specifically denied and let the members decide:


"...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..."

You cannot deny that Jesus is "begotten of the Father before the ages" without denying the Doctrine of the Trinity.

You believe part of it, but you call orthodox Chriatian faith (at least an important part) "heresy".

 

[JonC]

The concept of eternal generation is claiming a cause [generation] without a beginning, which is conceptually contrary to being Yahweh who is being without cause.

I am interested in how you address the issue of orthodox Christianity, specifically the Doctrine of the Trinity.

" that 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".

Notice that the doctrine contains that Jesus was "begotten of the Father before the ages". This is the element of the Doctrine of the Trinity that is called "Eternal Generation".

Also, note that the Doctrine of the Trinity also links this eternal generation with Christ being the Word.


So what would you say to Christians who strongly defend the traditional faith by arguing for eternal generation?


One example is John Owen's defense of Eternal Generation against the Socinians (the Socinians rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity and Owen argued to prove the doctrine by arguing for Eternal Generation....that Jesus did not have a beginning but is eternally begotten of God).

 

[JonC]

In his defence of Eternal Generation, here is how John Owen defined the doctrine "eternal generation, or he is the Son of God upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father from eternity".

One of his major points about Eternal Generation, @37818 , is that "eternal generation" means that the Word exists eternally (no beginning, no end) and without a change in His Divine nature or role within the Trinity.

I think that you may have misunderstood the doctrine, and perhaps do believe the Doctrine of the Trinity (to include the section aboutvthe nature of Jesus).

That is why I am asking you how you would answer the Christian who does believe the Doctrine of the Trinity about his or her ideas concerning an unchanging relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.

I also kinda want to know, if I am wrong and you do reject the doctrine, about how much of the Doctrine of the Trinity you do deny.

 

[37818]

No, it is not claiming a cause. It is a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

There are different views of the Trinity.

Claiming to he any kind of "generation" is to be claiming a cause! The Persons of the Trinity who are the SAME God are not caused!

. . . begotten of the Father before the ages, . . .

Not Biblical.
The term "begotten" is a cause!
God is Yahweh. The Trinity are the three distinct Persons who are the One and the SAME God. This Biblical Trinity is denied by the traditional "orthodox" Trinity as unorthodox.
The Catholic creeds are not Holy Scriptures.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Eternal Generation is a doctrine of demons. Period!

 

[JonC]

There are different views of the Trinity.

But every orthodox expression (historically) include eternal generation.

 

[JonC]

Eternal Generation is a doctrine of demons. Period!

Except it is orthodox. To deny the doctrine is "heresy".

It is to deny that God is immutable

Jesus did NOT become the Word. He is the Word. Eternally

 

[JonC]

In seminary we had a good illustration of eternal generation (flawed, as it is just an illustration, but good in understanding the term).

Suppose the sun, as it is today, is eternal and immutable. The light is eternally generated, without beginning or end.


Eternal Generation is simply that the Word was in the beginning with God and was God.

@SavedByGrace calls the idea that "in the beginning was the Word" a doctrine of demons, authored by Satan. @37818 calls the verse optional.


For these two to prove their position they have to show a time that the Son was not the Word or a time when the Son became the Word.


Otherwise they are denying the orthodox position simply to deny the traditional faith.

@37818 - since you deny that the Son is eternally the Word (eternal generation), when exactly do you think that He became the Word?

 

[JonC]

Claiming to he any kind of "generation" is to be claiming a cause!

The Doctrine of the Trinity actually predates the Catholic Church.

Anyway, you have misunderstood the term "eternal generation". You are mot using the definition but are instead breaking apart the term ans looking at one secular definition.

I already posted this illustration we had in seminary -

Suppose the sun as it is now is eternal. The light is also eternal (no beginning, existing with the sun) and eternally generated.

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that the Word is eternal, existing as and with God, and God is immutable. The Father, Son and Spirit are eternally the Father, Son and Spirit. The Second Person of the Trinity did not become the Word but is eternally the Word and His position or role within the Godhead is eternal.

That is what you are rejecting, not "generation" but "eternal generation" and the orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

Closed due to length