The Eternal Generation of the Son.

[37818]

Chrawnus recommend this book to me. "The Eternal Generation of the Son," by Kevin Giles. It is now in hand. The premise of the book, "Should all Christians, especially evangelicals, hold on to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son? What is lost if we don't?"

The Forward is written by Giles' friend Robert Letham. The second to the last sentence in his forward, I think, should be noted, "Dr. Giles's message is that if we abandon this doctrine, the we will be in grave peril."

[NorrinRadd]

Is that the same as "Eternal Sonship," a doctrine which some notable Evangelicals including the late Walter Martin rejected?

Is it inextricably linked with "Eternal Subordination" of the Son, a doctrine which many Evangelicals, including IIRC Millard Erickson, reject?

[Chrawnus]

Is that the same as "Eternal Sonship," a doctrine which some notable Evangelicals including the late Walter Martin rejected?

Is it inextricably linked with "Eternal Subordination" of the Son, a doctrine which many Evangelicals, including IIRC Millard Erickson, reject?

No to the bolded, yes to the eternal sonship part.


It's what the Nicene creed means when it says:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

[37818]

Is that the same as "Eternal Sonship," a doctrine which some notable Evangelicals including the late Walter Martin rejected?

Is it inextricably linked with "Eternal Subordination" of the Son, a doctrine which many Evangelicals, including IIRC Millard Erickson, reject?

No. Eternal Sonship, the eternal generation of the Son and the Trinity explanation of the Godhead are three issues.

Part of the argument to defend the concept of eternal generation of the Son is the notion that the eternal Sonship and Trinity explanation are to be contingent upon it.

Read the book, Giles deals with Walter Martin's objection (pgs. 30, 35, 207). I disagree with Dr Walter Martin over the concept of "Eternal Sonship." I have a copy of the Kingdom of Cults which I obtained around 1968. Dr. Martin did not deny that the Trinity is eternal. Only that he held the Sonship had a beginning. Which of course he is mistaken. The word of God affirms the eternality of the Son (Proverbs 30:4; John 1:3, 14, 18; 1 John 4:9-10).

Ironically, my objection to Dr Martin is an underling reason I came to my objection to the concept of the eternal generation of the Son, and so hold that it is unbiblical and so a false teaching. To hold it one must deny the sufficiency of the word of God.

BTW, this is not the forum to debate this.

[NorrinRadd]

No. Eternal Sonship, the eternal generation of the Son and the Trinity explanation of the Godhead are three issues.

Part of the argument to defend the concept of eternal generation of the Son is the notion that the eternal Sonship and Trinity explanation are to be contingent upon it.

Read the book, Giles deals with Walter Martin's objection (pgs. 30, 35, 207). I disagree with Dr Walter Martin over the concept of "Eternal Sonship." I have a copy of the Kingdom of Cults which I obtained around 1968. Dr. Martin did not deny that the Trinity is eternal. Only that he held the Sonship had a beginning.

Yes, I understand that. He held that Jesus was always the so-called "Second Person" of the Trinity, but that His specific status as "Son" began at a specific point in time.

Which of course he is mistaken. The word of God affirms the eternality of the Son (Proverbs 30:4; John 1:3, 14, 18; 1 John 4:9-10).

To me, all of those are far too vague to support Eternal Sonship as a credal test of orthodoxy, especially when we have explicit Biblical texts showing when Jesus was born, and when He was formally declared Son.

Ironically, my objection to Dr Martin is an underling reason I came to my objection to the concept of the eternal generation of the Son, and so hold that it is unbiblical and so a false teaching. To hold it one must deny the sufficiency of the word of God.

BTW, this is not the forum to debate this.

1) Why not?

2) I don't care.

[37818]

To me, all of those are far too vague to support Eternal Sonship as a credal test of orthodoxy, especially when we have explicit Biblical texts showing when Jesus was born, and when He was formally declared Son.

Then at what point did the Logos become the Son?
Some interpreters, such as Dr Martin suppose at the incarnation (John 1:14). But He was called the Son before the incarnation (Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2:7). He as the Son would be called the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6) Dr Martin, as I remember, argued that only meant as Creator, He was the Father of Eternity. Here is the deal, if God, the first Person of the Godhead, is understood to be the Eternal Father, then the Son being called that (John 14:8-9) would logically be the "Eternal" Son. And my thinking, if the "Son" is the Father of Eternity itself, He would logically be the "Eternal" Son.

Isaiah 64:8,
. . . But now, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. . . .

So did God Himself only become the Father upon creating? All that was ever made was through His Logos (John 1:3).
Here is how I see it. The immutability of God requires that God always was the Father and that there was always the Son and always was the Holy Spirit as a Person.

The relationship between God and His Logos being eternal. So being unique μονογενής with God from eternity. μονογενής is from two Greek words: μόνος meaning alone. And γίνομαι meaning to become [and translated "made" in John 1:3]. γίνομαι translated "begotten" in μονογενής as "only-begotten."

The argument being made for "the eternal generation of the Son" is that that concept is required for there to be an "Eternal Sonship" and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. I disagree. The eternal Sonship and Trinity explanation is deduced from the holy Scriptures alone.

[tabibito]

That piece in Isaiah is interesting: My take (and I will stress, my take) is that it identifies the Trinity:

Wonderful Counsellor - the Holy Spirit (the role of the Holy Spirit as counsellor is attested through the New Testament)
Mighty God - the Trinity as a unit (not exactly the wording that I want)
Eternal Father - the Father
Prince of Peace - the Son (Jesus is referred to as "prince" in Acts 3:15 and 5:31, and in Revelation 1:5)

Not enough to assert that it is so, perhaps, but definitely enough to raise the possibility.