The Filioque!

[RBerman]

First of all, according to Wikipedia, this is the original (325) Nicene Creed. It doesn't require a belief that Jesus was begotten before time.

That's why the Nicene Creed was revised (at the Council of Chalcedon?) to make some things clearer in response to the heresies of the day.

But moreover, I think your overall argument is weak. The distinctions between the three persons don't require that they always proceeded from or begat any of the others. All it requires is that they differentiated their roles from eternity. That is, the Son was the Son not because he was "begotten" (whatever that means) but because he is inherently the Son. Or even more minimally, it's theoretically possible that they were not inherently their own roles but simply chose to differentiate their roles later (although I doubt this possibility). That is, you could have three generic individuals, and one chooses to be the Father, the other the Son, and the third the Holy Spirit.

If we do want to say that Jesus's begetting now means he was always begotten, then I would apply that same logic to the Holy Spirit and change my vote, thereby endorsing the fioloque. But I'm just not real sure about that reasoning. The Father says "today have I begotten thee," in reference to the Resurrection. So I think the begetting terminology is possibly erroneous.

The point is that the titles "Father" and "Son" and "Spirit" are not arbitrary. They reflect eternal truths about the three persons. "Begotten" is part of the effort to elucidate the relationships that make the Son the Son, and not the Father. Are you sure that Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the resurrection as the time of Jesus' begetting? That would be Arian.

[JB]

First of all, according to Wikipedia, this is the original (325) Nicene Creed. It doesn't require a belief that Jesus was begotten before time:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, 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 both in heaven and on earth;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

As RBerman noted, the Nicene Creed was revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 reaffirmed this revision). This is the version that has been accepted by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants as the rule of faith.

I'd also like to note that, given that the original Nicene Creed contrasts "begotten" and "made" in light of the Arian controversy, it seems extraordinarily likely that the Council of Nicaea intended this to be taken as an eternal begetting of the Son, not a begetting at the resurrection. As such, the original Nicene Creed does implicitly speak to the eternal generation of the Son.

And, of course, this isn't simply some silly ancient belief. The early Lutheran theologians at Tübingen defended the filioque in a sixteenth-century epistolary exchange with Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople, and so clearly they attached theological importance to the idea that 'begotten' and 'proceeding' had application to eternal realities. (The exchange can be found in a volume edited and translated by George Mastrantonis, titled Augsburg and Constantinople.) The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 holds that "the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son" (2.3), and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 likewise held that "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son" (2.3). Setting aside the filioque issue, the general concept of eternal processions has been the historic inheritance of all orthodox Christians, regardless of particular tradition or denomination - and to set that aside would take some mighty strong arguments, I'd reckon.

But moreover, I think your overall argument is weak. The distinctions between the three persons don't require that they always proceeded from or begat any of the others.

You might want to refresh your knowledge of Thomas Aquinas' treatment of the intra-Trinitarian relations, then. His fullest treatment of the filioque can be found in Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei 10.4, but Summa contra Gentiles 4.24 is also quite an important section. (Consider also the third and fourth chapters of his De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochae.) Your particular concern, though, is whether there even are eternal processions or relations of origin in God, and so you might also be well served by reading, e.g., Summa theologiae I, 27ff.

The least that can be said is that some of the most dominant strains of Christian theology have said precisely that the distinctions are in some way grounded in the processions. To dismiss that with a simple denial of the conclusion hardly seems a sufficient answer to luminaries such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Richard of St. Victor, etc., etc. If they're wrong on the subject, I think that their legacy deserves to be overturned by something more substantive.

That is, the Son was the Son not because he was "begotten" (whatever that means) but because he is inherently the Son.

Being the Son simply is being the divine person who is eternally begotten, though. See Augustine of Hippo, De Trinitate 5.7:

And first we must notice, that by the word begotten is signified the same thing as is signified by the word son. For therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore certainly begotten.

A Son isn't a son unless begotten, so the Son must have been eternally begotten. You can't have a son without some manner of sonship, and historic Christian theology has long held that the Son has an eternal divine sonship.

All it requires is that they differentiated their roles from eternity. Or even more minimally, it's theoretically possible that they were not inherently their own roles but simply chose to differentiate their roles later (although I doubt this possibility). That is, you could have three generic individuals, and one chooses to be the Father, the other the Son, and the third the Holy Spirit.

Either the selection of 'roles' is necessary, or contingent. If contingent - proceeding from a contingent decision of the divine will - then it would follow that it can't provide the grounds for their differentiation, but presupposes it. If necessary, then we have the Father as eternally 'Father' without begetting, even though 'Father' by definition is the one who begets; we have the Son as eternally 'Son' without being begotten, even though 'Son' by definition is the one who is begotten; and we have the Spirit as eternally 'Spirit', even though 'Spirit' by definition is the one who proceeds. We need to have some sort of ontological basis for the necessity of the particular 'roles' of the three persons; having the roles simply as a brute fact doesn't seem quite sufficient, and would have been rejected by virtually every single Christian theologian from the period of the Early Church Fathers to the present. We want to know why the Father is 'Father', the Son is 'Son', and the Spirit is 'Spirit'

If we do want to say that Jesus's begetting now means he was always begotten, then I would apply that same logic to the Holy Spirit and change my vote, thereby endorsing the fioloque. But I'm just not real sure about that reasoning. The Father says "today have I begotten thee," in reference to the Resurrection. So I think the begetting terminology is possibly erroneous.

I think Aquinas says it best in Summa contra Gentiles 4.11.17:

Therefore, the Word of God is truly begotten by God speaking the Word; and His proceeding can be called 'generation' or 'birth'. This is why the Psalmist says: "This day have I begotten You" (Psalm 2:7); that is, in eternity which always is present and in which essentially there is neither past nor future

And also in his Commentary on Hebrews §49:

But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because this day I have begotten you. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as the motions whose measure it is; therefore, it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of an unchangeable thing; consequently, in eternity there is not variation due to succession of past and future, but there is only the present. Therefore, it is signified by an adverb of the present tense: this day, i.e., in eternity. But that which is coming to be, because it does not yet exist, is incomplete; and that which has come to be is complete and, therefore, perfect. Consequently, He does not say, ‘I begot you’, but I have begotten, because He is perfect. [...] As if to say: You are perfect, Son; and yet your generation is eternal and you are always being engendered by me, as light is perfect in the air and yet is always proceeding from the sun: "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2): "From the womb before the day star I have begotten you" (Psalm 109:3).

As I said, the Son is not a son unless and until begotten. So the Son were begotten of the Father only at the resurrection, then it would follow that he had not been the Son of God prior to that - and we know that that's a problematic position to take.


And RBerman is right about the 'resurrection' reading of Psalm 2:7. Athanasius, for instance, unambiguously associated this verse with eternity - see De Decretis 3, §13; Against the Arians 21, §57.

[Bavinck]

That's why the Nicene Creed was revised (at the Council of Chalcedon?

Actually, the revision was at Contantinople in 381 AD, in what is known as Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The revised line your thinking of is, "the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God".

Bavinck

[Obsidian]

Are you sure that Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the resurrection as the time of Jesus' begetting? That would be Arian.

First of all, Arius's position was that Jesus was begotten before time, so your accusation makes no sense. Second, read the relevant scriptural interpretation below:

Acts 13 NASB

30“But God raised Him from the dead; 31and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

I'd also like to note that, given that the original Nicene Creed contrasts "begotten" and "made" in light of the Arian controversy, it seems extraordinarily likely that the Council of Nicaea intended this to be taken as an eternal begetting of the Son, not a begetting at the resurrection. As such, the original Nicene Creed does implicitly speak to the eternal generation of the Son.

Maybe. Maybe it's just wrong. Or maybe they were referring to the Incarnation when they said "begotten." I think that could pretty easily and logically be called a begetting. I'm not even really opposed to there being more than one begetting. I just don't like the idea that Jesus originated in a begetting because the Bible doesn't actually say it and because it sounds Arian.

The least that can be said is that some of the most dominant strains of Christian theology have said precisely that the distinctions are in some way grounded in the processions. To dismiss that with a simple denial of the conclusion hardly seems a sufficient answer to luminaries such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Richard of St. Victor, etc., etc. If they're wrong on the subject, I think that their legacy deserves to be overturned by something more substantive.

I don't really see how it makes sense to shift the burden of proof over to me. Theology should consist of ideas proven from the Bible -- not just any popular ideas that cannot be firmly disproven.

Being the Son simply is being the divine person who is eternally begotten, though. . . . A Son isn't a son unless begotten, so the Son must have been eternally begotten.

That's overly literal reasoning. I could just as easily state that a son isn't a son unless created, and that therefore God must have created Jesus.

Either the selection of 'roles' is necessary, or contingent. If contingent - proceeding from a contingent decision of the divine will - then it would follow that it can't provide the grounds for their differentiation, but presupposes it. If necessary, then we have the Father as eternally 'Father' without begetting, even though 'Father' by definition is the one who begets; we have the Son as eternally 'Son' without being begotten, even though 'Son' by definition is the one who is begotten; and we have the Spirit as eternally 'Spirit', even though 'Spirit' by definition is the one who proceeds. We need to have some sort of ontological basis for the necessity of the particular 'roles' of the three persons; having the roles simply as a brute fact doesn't seem quite sufficient

Jesus is the Redeemer. Nonetheless, it would not make sense to state that he redeemed us "from eternity" because prior to the fall of man, there was nothing to redeem. We could probably still call him the Redeemer even before the fall of man, though, because he had a plan in mind to redeem us and he eventually carried through with that plan. I could make a similar argument about sonship and about Jesus's becoming begotten. He had in mind to do it, even though maybe he hadn't done it yet.

That said, is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God prior to the Incarnation? As far as I know, he is referred to as the Word/Thought, the Wisdom, an Angel, etc., but not the son (unless maybe you count Nebuchanezar's exclamation during the fiery furnance episode). Those are all arguably similar to a son, but they don't really require begetting -- only a sending out (procession?), an advisory role, and a serving role.

Anyway, even if you can find an example of Jesus being called the Son prior to his Incarnation, it wouldn't really defeat my point. I'm perfectly fine with there being more than one begetting. I just think begetting implies some sort of creation, as in the formation of Jesus's original body or his new body. And thus I don't think it makes sense to say that Jesus was begotten from eternity as though that were his "origin."

'Spirit' by definition is the one who proceeds.

Huh? Since when? My spirit doesn't proceed anywhere.

And I couldn't find your Athanasius passage anywhere. Overall, just throwing a bunch of extrabiblical quotes at me rather than citing relevant paragraphs or Bible verses makes things rather difficult.

[JB]

Maybe. Maybe it's just wrong.

Then I hope you'll make sure to inform your other discussion partners here at TheologyWeb that you think the Nicene Creed is flat-out wrong. That seems like something that would be important to let them know.

Or maybe they were referring to the Incarnation when they said "begotten." I think that could pretty easily and logically be called a begetting.

It doesn't matter whether it could be "pretty easily and logically [...] called a begetting". That's irrelevant here. (Though if you like, you're also free to explain in what sense you would term the incarnation being 'begotten of the Father'.

The point is that even the earliest form of the Nicene Creed explicitly contrasts 'begotten' and 'made'/'created'. That makes it quite clear that, since none of the participants in the Arian controversy supposed that the Son had been created at the moment of his earthly conception, neither are they talking about him being begotten by the Father at the moment of his earthly conception. Rather, since the Arians held that the Son was created at the very beginning, and identified the term 'begotten' with 'created', the Nicene Creed held that the Son was begotten of the Father before all ages but disassociated that term with the term 'created'.

This is also why the Definition of Chalcedon says that the Son was "begotten of his Father before the ages according to his deity".

I'm not even really opposed to there being more than one begetting. I just don't like the idea that Jesus originated in a begetting because the Bible doesn't actually say it and because it sounds Arian.

It also sounds Nicene, and Chalcedonian, and Athanasian, and Augustinian, and Thomist, and Lutheran, and Calvinist, and Baptist, and Methodist, and Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox, and.... See where I'm goin' with this, Obsidian?

You may, perhaps, be getting caught up with the temporal connotations of the word 'origin', but that would be a mistake. 'Origin' here is not to be taken so as to make Christ anything less than necessarily and eternally divine. It describes, rather, the intra-Trinitarian relations.

I don't really see how it makes sense to shift the burden of proof over to me. Theology should consist of ideas proven from the Bible -- not just any popular ideas that cannot be firmly disproven.

The problem is that you're willing to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of all major orthodox theologians, without providing any good biblical or philosophical argument to the contrary. If you could, then that would be one thing. I have no problem in discarding tradition when a good argument to the contrary is presented. But to do otherwise is simply disrespectful to those who've gone before us; they deserve so much better than that. This isn't merely "just any popular idea"; it's part of the historic creeds that define Christian orthodoxy. The great exegetes, philosophers, and theologians of the history of Christianity have set it down and presented arguments on its behalf; yes, the burden is now on the dissenter to provide at least something to the contrary.

That's overly literal reasoning. I could just as easily state that a son isn't a son unless created, and that therefore God must have created Jesus.

Try reading what I wrote again. "Begotten" and "son" are organically connected terms; there is something in the concept of 'son' that implies 'begotten', and vice versa. (Setting aside any and all gender issues for a moment, of course.) No such implication exists when it comes to 'creation'. Talking about an unbegotten son is like talking about an uncreated creature. It makes no sense.

Jesus is the Redeemer. Nonetheless, it would not make sense to state that he redeemed us "from eternity" because prior to the fall of man, there was nothing to redeem. We could probably still call him the Redeemer even before the fall of man, though, because he had a plan in mind to redeem us and he eventually carried through with that plan. I could make a similar argument about sonship and about Jesus's becoming begotten. He had in mind to do it, even though maybe he hadn't done it yet.

You seem to have misunderstood the argument again.

Either Christ is the Redeemer necessarily, or he is the Redeemer contingently from eternity, or he is the Redeemer contingently in time. It cannot be of necessity, because God could have chosen not to create the world, and therefore there would have been nothing to redeem and therefore no plan to redeem. If he is the Redeemer contingently from eternity, then this role is insufficient to differentiate him as a person from the Father and the Spirit, because the differentiation must be necessary, and thus be logically prior to the decision to redeem. The same obstacle applies to the suggestion that Jesus is Redeemer contingently in time. Thus, none of these disjunctions provides a basis for the distinctions between the divine persons.

(And furthermore, there's the additional problem that Father, Son, and Spirit each play a part in redemption, and all can be said to be Redeemer; this is why terms like Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier cannot be substituted for Father, Son, and Spirit. The personhood of the Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be reduced to mere 'roles'. That's how people get launched on the path to modalism.)

I reiterate: the distinction of the persons is grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations, and therefore in the eternal processions. In denying the eternal processions, you remove any clear eternal ground for the distinction of the persons, and thus modalism threatens - even if you youself recognize that the conclusion is unacceptable and hence do not follow the chain of reasoning to its end.

I still wait, however, in case you should happen to find a way to clearly ground the eternal, necessary distinction of the persons while denying the processions.

(Another thing to keep in mind: many Christian theologians have long held that these processions are what explains why there are three persons of the Trinity, rather than one, two, four, five, or any other number. For example, I might direct your attention to Thomas Aquinas' Summa contra Gentiles 4.26. So if you want to construct a procession-less model of the Trinity, it would behoove you to offer a fresh answer to that question as well.)

That said, is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God prior to the Incarnation?

Would there be much point in attempting to give you biblical evidence? You'd simply reinterpret it as indicating an intent to become the Son, rather than the pre-incarnate Christ already possessing sonship.

(And, incidentally, if Christ weren't the Son prior to his incarnation, then we'd have a case of "not always Father, not always Son". Just thought I'd mention that this is known to have been a popular Arian slogan back in the day.)

As far as I know, he is referred to as the Word/Thought, the Wisdom, an Angel, etc., but not the son (unless maybe you count Nebuchanezar's exclamation during the fiery furnance episode). Those are all arguably similar to a son, but they don't really require begetting -- only a sending out (procession?), an advisory role, and a serving role.

Thomas Aquinas addressed this question as well. I quote from his Lectures on the Gospel of John §31, commenting on the Fourth Gospel's first verse:

Why did he say Word and not “Son,” since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son? [...] First, because “son” means something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word.

The second answer is this. The Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to manifest the Father. But since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name Word.

And, for a more succinct treament, the fortieth chapter of his Compendium theologiae:

Hence in the rule of Catholic faith we are taught to profess belief in the Father and Son in God by saying: “I believe in God the Father, and in His Son.” And lest anyone, on hearing Father and Son mentioned, should have any notion of carnal generation, by which among us men father and son receive their designation, John the Evangelist, to whom were revealed heavenly mysteries, substitutes “Word” for “Son,” (John 1:14) so that we may understand that the generation is intellectual.

Anyway, even if you can find an example of Jesus being called the Son prior to his Incarnation, it wouldn't really defeat my point. I'm perfectly fine with there being more than one begetting. I just think begetting implies some sort of creation, as in the formation of Jesus's original body or his new body. And thus I don't think it makes sense to say that Jesus was begotten from eternity as though that were his "origin."

That's precisely the same mistake that the Arians made. They, too, held that begetting implies some sort of creation. And that is exactly the mistake that itself gave rise to Arianism. Because Christians long before the time of Arius also recognized that the Son was begotten in the beginning. Arius, clinging to his error, inferred that the Son was therefore created in the beginning. Athanasius and the rest of the Nicene party, on the other hand, denied the implication and gave rise to the next phase of orthodox theology.

Huh? Since when? My spirit doesn't proceed anywhere.

Remember that pneuma means also 'breath' and 'wind' - and certainly our breath does 'proceed' out of us, in a manner. Consider what Thomas Aquinas said in Lectura super Ioannem §2062:

And because the word 'spirit' (spiritus) suggests a kind of impulse and every motion produces an effect in harmony with its source (as heating makes something hot), it follows that the Holy Spirit makes those to whom he is sent like the one whose Spirit he is. And since he is the Spirit of Truth, "He will teach you all truth" [John 16:13]; "The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding" [Job 32:8]. In the same way, because he is the Spirit of the Son, he produces sons: "You have received the spirit of sonship" [Romans 8:15].

Why do you think the Holy Spirit in particular is properly called 'Holy Spirit'? After all, as has long been recognized, the terms 'holy' and 'spirit' in some sense apply to all three persons of the Trinity. The term 'Holy Spirit', then, must apply most properly to the third person for some reason. Thomas Aquinas discusses this topic in particular in Summa theologiae I, q36, a1.

And I couldn't find your Athanasius passage anywhere.

You mean the ones I mentioned? I would've thought they'd be fairly easy to find; I'll try to do better in providing links, then. Here is De Decretis 3; you'll want to check §13:

Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than any the nature of everything, says through Moses, of the creatures, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" [Genesis 1:1]; but of the Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself saying, "I have begotten Thee from the womb before the morning star" [Psalm 110:3]; and again, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" [Psalm 2:7]. And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, "Before all the hills He begets me" [Proverbs 8:25]; and concerning things originated and created John speaks, "All things were made by Him" [John 1:3]; but preaching of the Lord, he says, "The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him" [John 1:18]. If then son, therefore not creature; if creature, not son; for great is the difference between them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless His essence be considered to be at once from God, and external to God.

And here is Against the Arians 21; you'll want to check §57:

For had He been a creature, He had not said, "He begets me", for the creatures are from without, and are works of the Maker; but the Offspring is not from without nor a work, but from the Father, and proper to His Essence. Wherefore they are creatures; this God’s Word and Only-begotten Son. For instance, Moses did not say of the creation, "In the beginning He begat", nor "In the beginning was", but ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" [Genesis 1:1]. Nor did David say in the Psalm, "Thy hands have 'begotten me’", but "made me and fashioned me" [Psalm 119:37], everywhere applying the word ‘made’ to the creatures. But to the Son contrariwise; for he has not said "I made", but "I begat" [Psalm 2:7], and "He begets me", and "My heart uttered a good Word" [Psalm 45:1]. And in the instance of the creation, "In the beginning He made"; but in the instance of the Son, "In the beginning was the Word" [John 1:1].

Overall, just throwing a bunch of extrabiblical quotes at me rather than citing relevant paragraphs or Bible verses makes things rather difficult.

For someone with a sola scriptura extremis attitude, I imagine that it would. It also makes things rather difficult when, instead of dealing with the theological rationale offered, it's sorely misconstrued and brushed aside as unworthy of honestly engaging.

Well, go ahead and re-read those extrabiblical quotes and look closely for some of the biblical rationale that the authors cite. Try those "relevant paragraphs or Bible verses" on for size.

I got into this thread primarily, however, to interact with Nicene Christians who reject the filioque, not with non-Nicene Christians.

[Bavinck]

Acts 13 NASB

30“But God raised Him from the dead; 31and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

Here in Acts the Apostle Paul does find fulfillment of the begetting of Ps. 2:7 in Christ's resurrection. However, the author of Hebrews finds fulfillment of this in the incarnation of Christ and hence his birth (He. 1:4-5). Finally, the Gospel of Luke even seems to allude to Ps. 2:7 as fulfilled in Jesus baptism (Lk. 3:22). For these reasons, traditional exegesis understands the birth, baptism and resurrection of Christ as all fulfillment of Ps. 2:7, in that each of these events "demonstrates" that Christ is the Son of God and not that these events are constitutive of his being the Son. Some advocates even see this more general fulfillment of Ps. 2:7 as suggesting that this passage speaks of an eternal relationship of Father and Son that is revealed in the incanation and resurrection.

I just don't like the idea that Jesus originated in a begetting because the Bible doesn't actually say it and because it sounds Arian.

That would definitively sound Arian, but that isn't what the Nicaeans or historic Trinitarians are saying when they speaks of the Son as eternally begotten. They are simply saying that the Son is eternally of/from the Father's eternal nature and hence "homoousos" (one nature) with the Father. In this way, the Nicaeans established both the one eternal Deity of both Father and Son and their distinction as such.

is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as the Son of God prior to the Incarnation?

This is an excellent question, and that answer is "yes". First, the Apostle Paul in Col. 1:12-13 speaks of the Father and his "dear Son" and then using pronouns in direct reference to the Son says, "For by him were all things created" (v. 16) and then adds of the Son, "he is before all things, and by him all things consist". Again, it's explicitly the Father's dear Son (v. 13) that is here in view and Paul clearly depicts him as eternal.

A similar passage is He. 1:1-2 which speaks of God revealing himself by his "Son" and then says of this Son, "by whom also he made the worlds". This passage puts the Son as such at the time of creation and thus clearly before the incarnation.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus explains, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father" (16:28). Here Jesus speaks of his incarnation as his coming into the world from outside it. This is clear in that he both says, "I came forth from the Father" and in that he compares his sending with his again returning to heaven. It is this literal sending into the world to become incarnate that Jesus also speaks of when in John 3 he says, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man" (Jn. 3:13). Here Jesus is again clearly speaking of his coming from heaven to become incarnate. However, this is just three verses before John 3:16-17 which says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" and explains this saying, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved". Here what exactly "only begotten" means is beside the point because the passage also explicitly speaks of the "Son" as the one sent into the world. What's more is that this can't just be Jesus sending within the world because this sending is clearly in context of v. 13 which involves Jesus coming into the world from heaven. Clearly God sent his Son as such into the World to become incarnate, which shows his Son to preexist the sending.

Other passages that show the Son to be such before becoming incarnate are Jn. 1:14, Ro. 8:3 and Gal. 4:4-6. In Jn. 1:14 the Word's eternal glory is the glory the "only begotten", which at the very least means "only Son". This makes the eternal Word and the Son synonymous. Ro. 8:3 and Gal. 4:4-6 also speak of the Son's sending into the world. The latter passage places the Son's sending alongside the Spirit's sending. Thus, since the Spirit's sending is of a divine person form heaven, so it seems is the Son's as well. At any rate, the Biblical evidence for the Son preexisting the incarnation is substantial.

Bavinck

[Obsidian]

Then I hope you'll make sure to inform your other discussion partners here at TheologyWeb that you think the Nicene Creed is flat-out wrong. That seems like something that would be important to let them know.
. . . .
This isn't merely "just any popular idea"; it's part of the historic creeds that define Christian orthodoxy.

I think you care a little too much about creeds. Anyway, the Profile list just says that you must adhere to the Apostle's Creed to be considered orthodox.

The great exegetes, philosophers, and theologians of the history of Christianity have set it down and presented arguments on its behalf; yes, the burden is now on the dissenter to provide at least something to the contrary.

In fact, you care so much about creeds that you keep referencing all these great theologians and "exegetes" but haven't yet listed any exegesis of your own. That's the problem with dogma; it encourages rote citation and discourages thought.

I reiterate: the distinction of the persons is grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations, and therefore in the eternal processions. In denying the eternal processions, you remove any clear eternal ground for the distinction of the persons, and thus modalism threatens - even if you youself recognize that the conclusion is unacceptable and hence do not follow the chain of reasoning to its end.

So says Athanasius, apparently, but I don't agree. The distinction of the persons is grounded in the fact that they are three people. They could all have the exact same personality and attributes, but they would still be three spirits and thus three persons. It just so happens that they do have different roles and seemingly different personalities, but that's just something we observe from their actions in the Bible, not something that must intrinsically be true. Athanasius's distinguishing of the Son and Spirit via "intellect" and "love" seems to me like philosophical gibberish. In any case, both the Son and the Spirit have both love and intellect.

To say that they are only distinguished by their roles (or modes!) actually sounds closer to modalism, in my mind.

Try reading what I wrote again. "Begotten" and "son" are organically connected terms; there is something in the concept of 'son' that implies 'begotten', and vice versa. . . .Talking about an unbegotten son is like talking about an uncreated creature. It makes no sense.

Definitions of beget on the Web:

•make children; "Abraham begot Isaac"; "Men often father children but don't recognize them"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•To cause; to produce; To procreate; to father (rarely: to mother); to get with child
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beget

•To father, or sire. Etymology is: Indo-European "ghend" > Old English "begetan" > Middle English "biyeten" > Modern English "Beget."

Those all generally seem to refer to creation or conception, which by your reasoning would imply that you cannot have an uncreated or unconceived son.

On the other hand, the Bible does seem to refer to Christians both as "adopted" and as "begotten." So maybe "begotten" in the Bible means something along the lines of "designated as a son/Son." I could probably accept that Jesus was begotten in that sense from eternity. It's still a little dubious because the Bible doesn't explicitly state it, but it seems like a logical inference.

(And, incidentally, if Christ weren't the Son prior to his incarnation, then we'd have a case of "not always Father, not always Son". Just thought I'd mention that this is known to have been a popular Arian slogan back in the day.)

The OT describes God as the Father of the Israelites and (probably) of angels.

And lest anyone, on hearing Father and Son mentioned, should have any notion of carnal generation, by which among us men father and son receive their designation, John the Evangelist, to whom were revealed heavenly mysteries, substitutes “Word” for “Son,” (John 1:14) so that we may understand that the generation is intellectual.

Using words like "generation" as applied to Jesus only serves to underscore my concerns.

Why did he say Word and not “Son,” since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son? [...] First, because “son” means something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation. Thus he did not say “Son,” but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and changeable generation. And so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word.

A word isn't actually created or begotten or generated by speaking. It exists in the mind even before proceeding outward. That's why Logos can also be translated "thought." Anyway, it seems like Thomas is undermining his own position, because the Word wasn't spoken until the beginning of creation (rather than "before eternity"). So if we want to call the creating work of Jesus a "begetting," then that means Jesus was begotten right before creation, which to my mind seems different than "begotten from eternity."

Remember that pneuma means also 'breath' and 'wind' - and certainly our breath does 'proceed' out of us, in a manner.

This is a pretty good argument. But breath can also stay inside the lungs without proceeding, which is presumably what he did before they got to work making any creations. I don't know where he would have proceeded to before that. Nonetheless, it is possible that he was proceeding from eternity based solely on his name.

That would definitively sound Arian, but that isn't what the Nicaeans or historic Trinitarians are saying when they speaks of the Son as eternally begotten. They are simply saying that the Son is eternally of/from the Father's eternal nature and hence "homoousos" (one nature) with the Father. In this way, the Nicaeans established both the one eternal Deity of both Father and Son and their distinction as such.

Well when they keep using terms like "generated from," you have to wonder. As stated above, if you just want to define "beget" as "identifying as a son" then it would probably make sense to state that Jesus was begotten from eternity.

I would argue with you about a few of your passages, but you're right that John 3:16 and similar verses about sending a Son do sort of imply that he was already a "son" before he was incarnated.

I still would be a little hesitant about using the "begotten" language to refer to his preincarnate state, though, considering that the Bible doesn't seem to use it. I don't think the Father's words at Jesus's baptism have real relevance to whether Jesus had yet been "begotten." It's a common misconception (I think) that "Today I have begotten thee" occurs at the baptism (At least, it used to be my misconception). The reference in Hebrews doesn't seem to be any more explicit than Psalm 2, so imo Acts 13 is still the clearest explanation for what "Today have I begotten thee" means.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit did both pretty clearly "proceed" out prior the Incarnation, obviously.

I got into this thread primarily, however, to interact with Nicene Christians who reject the filioque, not with non-Nicene Christians.

I guess this whole argument is slightly off-topic.

For someone with a sola scriptura extremis attitude....

I don't mind extrabiblical speculation, in its place. But I do find it idiotic and probably unbiblical to have church splits over extrabiblical speculation -- which is basically what the Catholics and Orthodox did over the Filioque. So in that way, this discussion is still somewhat on-topic.

[RBerman]

Are you sure that Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the resurrection as the time of Jesus' begetting? That would be Arian.

First of all, Arius's position was that Jesus was begotten before time, so your accusation makes no sense. Second, read the relevant scriptural interpretation below:

Acts 13 NASB

30“But God raised Him from the dead; 31and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32“And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

Arius' position was also that Jesus was not the eternal God. He believed that there was a time at which Jesus had not yet been "begotten of the Father." That's where he went astray. "Eternally begotten" (the correct position) is different than "Begotten at a time before the creation of the world" (the Arian position).

[Obsidian]

What do begotten and proceeded mean, according to you?

[RBerman]

What do begotten and proceeded mean, according to you?

"Begotten" is a term used in ordinary human relations to designate the relationship between a parent and a child. The son submits to the father and emulates him. This captures the distinctive character of the eternal relationship (sometimes called the "economy") between God the Father and God the Son.

The Spirit (lit. "breath") of God has a different relationship to the Father and the Son than they have to each other, for the Spirit is sent forth into the hearts of men (whereas the Son came from and returned his seat at the right hand of the Father). This sending is what the word "proceeds" describes.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Kabane52 said:
“Jesus is sending the Holy Spirit to the Apostles in a temporal sense.
The Filioque deals not with temporal sending, but the source of the Holy Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit of GOD is an eternal Divine Person,
and as such, i.e. being eternal,
His Divine existence obviously has neither beginning nor end.

Therefore, to speculate concerning the “source” of an Eternal Divine Person;
in particular, GOD the Holy Spirit, in respect of Whom nothing whatever is said anywhere in the Scriptures of His having an ontological *source* or origin,
serves no constructive salvific or other purpose, but is merely speculative, thus counter-productive, inconclusive, and futile hair-splitting.
Michael T.

Critics of the Church's rejection of the Filioque are simply failing to differentiate ECONOMIC procession from ONTOLOGICAL procession...

The Creed is clearly and ONLY referring to ONTOLOGICAL procession...
Hence the spuriousness of Michael's rejection,
for clearly Scripture has the Father as the SOURCE of the Son through eternal begottenness,
and likewise as the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit through procession...

Rome did try to clean this up after her error by saying that the Father IS the ONLY source of the procession of the holy spirit,
but that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is THROUGH the Son...

The problem with this is that the confusion of ekonomia and ontology is only thereby maintained,
whereas in the confession of the Faith, the economic procession is NOT IN VIEW...

And that is true irreligious of any rantological Bible whackings to the contrary...

The ONE TRUE GOD is the FATHER, and from Him the Son and the Holy Spirit, and ALL this eternally,
for all are, in virtue of their ontological Source, ONE GOD with the Father,
and if you cannot handle the concept of a Holy Mystery, which this is,
then you are lost in the fallen human intellect that worships its own reasoning from written words
rather than the 2000 year long witness of the People of God
who GAVE them the words upon which they are basing their opinions...

The Creed begins with:

I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD,
THE FATHER ALMIGHTY,
MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,
AND OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE

He is the Father of the Son, and from him proceeds the Holy Spirit in Power...

To make the Son the ontological Source of the Holy Spirit is simply not only unbiblical, but wrongheaded...
There is nothing in Holy Writ that says that Christ is the ontological Origin of the Holy Spirit...
You simply cannot beat that dead horse out of the Good Book...

It ain't there...

And please forgive me for not reading the whole thread before posting this...

Arsenios

I would almost be willing to bet that the proponents of the Filioque have already conceded this point...

[Obsidian]

Yeah, but the economic procession is pretty much all the scripture gives you. Beyond that it's just speculation.

[RBerman]

Critics of the Church's rejection of the Filioque are simply failing to differentiate ECONOMIC procession from ONTOLOGICAL procession. The Creed is clearly and ONLY referring to ONTOLOGICAL procession.

What makes that so clear?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

What makes that so clear?

The entire structure of the confession of the Creed...

I Believe In:
One God... And WHO He is...
One Lord... And WHO He is...
The Holy Spirit... And WHO He is...
One Church...
One Baptism...
The Resurrection from the dead...
The Life of the Age to Come...

So because the One God is the Father Almighty...
The Son of the Father is begotten from Him eternally... eg outside of time...
And the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father eternally...

The ONLY differentiation of the Father from the Son and from the Holy Spirit,
because they are all ONE GOD,
is the Unoriginateness of the Father,
vs the Begottenness of the Son from the Father,
and the [eternal] Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father...

And those differentiations are NOT clearly definable in their actual meanings...
They are but given to us by revelation...
The whole of the Three Persons being One God is an unfathomable Mystery only apprehended by Faith,
and yields not to the fallen intellect of mankind in Adam...

The Holy Spirit is the Power of God in the world...

Arsenios

[RBerman]