Argument by authority,zero appeal scriptural precedent. And the usual non sequiturs. The fact that Jesus is the agent through which ALL the dead are resurrected does not exclude his being one/first of the resurrected even though he is also firstborn/first-fruits of the resurrected see rev ch.1:5 Colossians ch.1:18
Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ' ‘You are my son; TODAY I have become your father.’ b""
Hebrews ch1:5ESV"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you”?..."
Psalms ch.104:29,30ESV"When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30When you send forth your Spirit,c they are created, and you renew the face of the ground."
Note please that the re-creating of the Jesus in time is considered a Begetting and does not disqualify him from holding the title of only begotten Son. Thus the notion that his creation in time would disqualify him from holding the title of only begotten Son or firstbegotten Son is discredited.
One blog says, "He was appointed the Son of God with power at his resurrection (Rom. 1:4; Acts 13:33). He was already the Son, but his resurrection confirmed it with power. This declaration is his coronation (Ps. 2)."
So, the author appears to claim that Christ was begotten "today" insofar as God declared him to be Son and carried out his coronation by raising him from the dead.
Here's another explanation that quite frankly makes no sense to me:
"The Lord Jesus was already the Son of God – but He was the Only Begotten Son of God in His divinity (John 3:16). When He became a man, Christ put on the element of humanity, and in His humanity Christ was not yet the Son of God. But in His resurrection – 'today I have begotten You' – Christ brought His humanity into His divinity and was begotten by God in His humanity to be the Son of God (Acts 13:33)."
Luke ch.1:35NIV"The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." So like the first Adam the second Adam was the Son of God we note that JEHOVAH'S being the cause of his human life and existence is given as the reason that he is to be regarded as the human son of God. Once he died he would cease to exist and the only way for his Sonship to be restored would be for JEHOVAH to beget him anew otherwise divine power would unnecessary: John ch.6:57NIV"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father..." JEHOVAH is his Father because JEHOVAH caused him to live and keeps him alive. So he is not self-existent. He had an end in time and a restoration in time and still he is called the only begotten there is no necessary reason to put his original Begetting outside of Time.
I agree that his begettal does not have to be placed outside of time. Eternal generation is incoherent, and has been criticized by many Evangelicals. However, Trinitarians are trying to make Jesus the "Son of God" without viewing him as a creature: the eternal generation doctrine claims that Christ's begettal is from eternity to eternity (i.e., timeless). It has no beginning and will never have an end. Yet a major problem is that it's mostly hypothetical and tenuously based on a small selection of biblical texts.
Not to mention the philosophical problems. If the Begetting is perpetually incomplete how is he the "only" begotten? If anything his Begetting should be the most complete.
The official view is that the Son's begettal (generation) has always happened and will always happen because it is completely atemporal.
They understand "only-begotten" in two primary ways:
1) The Son is the only person to be eternally generated by God, so that makes him different from other "sons of God."
2) Some argue that monogenes eventually lost its semantic component of "begotten" and it came to signify something "unique" or sui generis, but a begotten person or biological organism.
Except he wasn't if the generating is ongoing. If I am eternally baking a cake, the cake was never baked and never will be baked. That is why it is incoherent to speak of any occurrence as happening outside of time, if there is no Tempus then there would be no temporal distinctions, no past,no present,no future.
To me, it's a rabbit hole and prominent Trinitarians have gainsaid the teaching. This does not prevent others from insisting that the Son is eternally begotten. For starters, yes, they're defining eternal as "timeless" or atemporal. Next, they're arguing that it's possible for a birth and other activities to occur timelessly or without any temporal distinctions although they have introduced the eternal present as a category. I agree with you that the idea is filled with holes, but here is how theologian Louis Berkhof lays out the eternal generation:
"It is an eternal act of the Father. This naturally follows from the preceding. If the generation of the Son is a necessary act of the Father, so that it is impossible to conceive of Him as not generating, it naturally shares in the eternity of the Father. This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past, but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son. In addition to this it can be inferred from all those passages of Scripture which teach either the pre-existence of the Son or His equality with the Father, Mic. 5:2; John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 5:17, 18, 30, 36; Acts 13:33; John 17:5; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3. The statement of Ps. 2:7, 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,' is generally quoted to prove the generation of the Son, but, according to some, with rather doubtful propriety, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. They surmise that these words refer to the raising up of Jesus as Messianic King, and to the recognition of Him as Son of God in an official sense, and should probably be linked with the promise found in II Sam. 7:14, just as they are in Heb. 1:5."
Luke ch.20:36NIV"and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection." 2Corinthians ch.5:17NIV"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" To reinforce the idea of the resurrection as being the same as a creation "ab initio" A death is necessarily an uncreating a resurrection is necessarily a re-creating. This in the resurrection we get a review of the logos original Begetting in finite time.
a. That on the prior passage, a. ERASMUS on that passage suggests that the accent is able to be changed, and to be πρωτοτόκος πάσης κτίσεως, and that thus the sense is going to be, He first produced all things, and every creature was born of Him. He observes that what follows, that in Him were all things created, etc., verse 16, does not poorly cohere with this sense.
b. Others observe that the Son of God is here said to be begotten, not created, to have been before every creature, just as in verse 17 it is simply said πρὸ πάντων, before all things; and, that AMBROSE discoursed upon this opinion, the same ERASMUS just now cited advises. But this, according to the opinion of others, could be more easily admitted, if πρότοκος or προτερότοκος were read: but they think that a superlative in composition is never taken for a positive, and in comparison with other things is everywhere used of things of the same sort with which it is compared. Nevertheless, it is able to be considered, whether this criticism be more subtle than just, and whether this passage is able to be compared with John 1:15; 15:18
c. And so, with respect had to the superiority and privileges of the Firstborn formerly, they maintain that the Firstborn of every Creature is metonymically nothing other than the Lord of creatures: just as Cæsar was indeed the name of a family, which name adhered to Julius Cæsar on account of his birth from this family; but on account of the dominion that he here obtained, this cognomen was bestowed upon subsequent Emperors because of their succession in the same empire. CALVIN, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book II, chapter XII, § 4,
“I do indeed acknowledge that in the first order of creation and the whole state of nature Christ was put in charge of angels and men as head: for which reason He is called by Paul the firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1:15.” And in § 7
“For Osiander[4] quite unadvisedly snatches at what no sane person will concede, that supremacy over the Angels does not agree with Christ, that they might enjoy Him as Prince, except as He is man. But it is easily elicited from the words of Paul, Colossians 1:15, that He, as He is the eternal word of God, is the Firstborn of every creature, not because He was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures: but because the whole state of the world, which sort from the beginning was manifest in consummate beauty, had no other beginning: then, that He, as He was made man, was the firstborn from the dead. For in one, brief context the Apostle sets forth both for consideration, that all things were created through the Son, that He might have dominion over the Angels: and through Him man was made, so that He might undertake to be his redeemer, Colossians 1:18, 16.” Again, chapter XIII, § 2,
“Concerning the name of Firstborn they ignorantly agitate controversy. They allege that God ought to have been born immediately from Adam in the beginning, so that He might be the Firstborn among brethren. For Primogeniture is referred, not to age, but to degree of honor and eminence of virtue.”
Add FRANCISCUS JUNIUS’ Locos Communes theologicos, chapter XXVII, column 59, opera, tome 2; and especially WESSELIUS’ Nestorianismum et Adoptianismum redivivum confutatum, chapter XII, § 157-159, where you may read among other things:
“For no other reason does the Apostle call Him the Firstborn of every Creature, Colossians 1:15, than because He is the Lord of it. Which Universal Dominion, since it springs immediately from the creation of all things, Paul immediately subjoined in verses 16, 17, for through Him were all things created, etc. But, since that Same Dominion was first founded in the Superiority of His highest Deity and His Natural and eternal Filiation, Paul set down beforehand, who is the Image of the invisible God, etc. But I would have this especially to be observed, that a Genitive added to the word πρωτότοκος/firstborn, that is, when it connotes the genus that is rightly to be attended to, expresses, either the parent, as if I should say, He is the Firstborn of Abraham, of Jacob, of Mary; or collateral sharers of the same nature of Origin…. But the Genitive in this Title, the Firstborn of every creature, is not able to express the Parent, because thus the Son of God would be said to have been begotten of all created things; which is absurd and impious. Neither is it able to signify Collaterals, because then it would denote such Brethren as are of the same essence and specific generation from the Father with the Firstborn Brother…. Therefore, because the Genitive, of every creature, is here able to expres neither the Parent, nor Brethren and sharers of the same specific nature, one of which it ought to signify according to the common manner of speaking, if generation from the Father be connoted in this Title of Firstborn; with good reason I conclude that that Title, here given to Christ, does not connote His divine descent and generation from the Father, but only expresses His Dominion over every Creature, which He made and bears by the word of His power.[5] Certainly then all things flow easily in the Text and Context, when the Firstborn of every Creature is determined to be the same thing as the Prince and Lord of every Creature.” And this exegesis is certain very probable. What things HERMAN VENEMA[6] discusses in Exercise IV de Vera Christi Divinitate, § 8, pages 157-159, are also able to be considered and weighed.
According to Catholic dogma, there are two inherent, eternal, and substantial processes in God: one by which the second divine person originates from the first as the Son from the Father, which therefore bears the name generation, begetting, birth (generatio), and one by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, which we call spiration (spiratio).
A procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις) generally refers to a process that starts from one reality and ends at another, with the content being the real existence of the endpoint originating from the starting point. Since God is simple, in God there can only be immanent processions: the starting and endpoint of the procession cannot exceed the boundaries of the divine reality, but remains entirely within the Godhead. And since the Godhead itself cannot be divided in its essence, the resulting reality can only encompass the entire, undivided divine reality; in other words, divine procession can only be substantial, that is, the resulting reality can only be God. Finally, since God is pure actuality (actus purus), processions in God cannot represent transitions from potentiality to actuality; that is, they are eternal. Therefore, the originator cannot exert a creative, constitutive, or causative activity in relation to the originated; hence, the originating persons cannot be called the cause of the originated but only their principle (principium); the principle is a more general concept than cause and does not necessarily express a causal relationship; for example, the point is the principle of the line, but not its cause.
In the Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:5), the divinity of Christ is proclaimed, referring to these words of the second psalm: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Christ says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26). Based on such biblical revelations, theology talks about the Trinitarian origins or derivations (processiones trinitariae), and about two forms of origins. Theologians refer to the origin of the Son as generation or birth (generatio), and that of the Holy Spirit as simple origin or derivation (processio simpliciter).
Since each person of the Trinity is God, and God has existed eternally, it is utterly impossible for any divine person to precede the others in time; and since the persons share a single nature, no hierarchical difference can arise among them. Therefore, the Trinitarian origins merely signify logical succession, that is, the logical rationale (ratio) and principle basis (principium) of one person are different from those of another. The Father is a Father by constantly transmitting his essence to the Son from eternity, and the Son is a Son by eternally accepting this essence, in which the essence of the Father is eternally reflected. This acceptance, this becoming of the person in reflection, is what we call sonship or birth. The divine essence is the same in all three persons, but the "mode of existence" of this essence is quite different in the Father, who eternally imbues it into the Son, and in the Son, who eternally accepts it, and in the Holy Spirit, to whom the Father and the Son also eternally transmit it, and who accepts it from them.
The earliest church fathers tried to illustrate the birth of the Son with analogies. Just as the rays of the sun constantly emanate from the sun as long as it exists, and just as water constantly trickles from an inexhaustible spring as long as the spring exists; the Son is similarly constantly born from the Father, indeed eternally, since the Father exists eternally. The "today" in the second Psalm refers to God's "eternal present," as there is no past and future, yesterday and tomorrow, for Him - as the dogma about God's eternity teaches. The Trinitarian origins are eternal origins. The church fathers' analogies are only partly accurate, and can be critiqued from multiple perspectives. For instance, the sun is the physical cause of the rays, the spring is of the brook, but physical causality must be excluded from God: God is not a cause of Himself (causa sui), but the spiritual rationale of His being (ratio sui), which means that the rationale of His existence is not to be found outside Him, but within Him. Nor are the aforementioned analogies good because the spring's water would be more if it didn't flow out as a brook, but the divine essence cannot lose anything in the Trinitarian origins, neither with the birth of the Son, nor with the origin of the Holy Spirit; since God is absolutely unchanging and indivisible. Due to the same unchangeability, neither the Son can gain anything extra by being born, nor the Holy Spirit by originating. The birth of the Son and the origin of the Holy Spirit - as stated above - may only create a different mode of existence for the same divine essence, but by no means a change. Because of this identity of essence, classical Trinitarianism calls the Trinitarian origins substantial origins (processiones substantiales). The latter also means that not only the originator but also the originated is God, as these origins are the various forms of existence of the common divine essence (substantia).
According to Augustine, since God is spirit, we should look for analogies in the realm of spiritual processes when we want to study God's inner life.
One of the most important manifestations of our spiritual life is the formation of concepts, the birth of our notions. Just as an unexpressed concept (verbum mentis) is conceived, born in our consciousness, the Son is born from the Father in the same way. The Son is essentially nothing more than the concept that the Father forms of himself, his self-knowledge, which on the one hand has always been there, and on the other hand possesses such power, intensity that it becomes a separate person.
Since God is the infinite perfection of all values (true, good, beautiful, holy), and these values provoke spiritual love from the soul, the Father also infinitely loves himself as a totality of value, and this infinite love must also be reflected in the Son. The love of the Father reflected in the Son and the reflection of this love in the Father, as if “bouncing back”, is essentially one and eternal love, and it is also so intense that it becomes a separate person, the person of the Holy Spirit.
Augustine's analogy has three advantages:
a) It aptly shows that we can rightly speak of a spiritual kind of birth and origin, such as we encounter with the persons of the Trinity.
b) What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge, and what is created as love, can also be "immanent": the originated does not "step out" of the originator in this case, just as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life of the Son, indeed his entire essence, is identical with that of the Father, he does not step out of him, he does not separate from him in any reality; similarly, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remains the same with the other two persons and stays within them.
b) What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge, and what is created as love, can also be "immanent": the originated does not "step out" of the originator in this case, just as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life of the Son, indeed his entire essence, is identical with that of the Father, he does not step out of him, he does not separate from him in any reality; similarly, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remains the same with the other two persons and stays within them.
c) The divine and human self-knowledge are similar in that the birth of both can be equally referred to as conception and birth. Since the conception and birth of our thoughts coincide in time, not as it happens in the birth and conception of animals and humans. That's why these two expressions are completely synonymous: "the Father has been begetting the Son from eternity", and "the Father has been giving birth to the Son from eternity".
Of course, there are essential differences between divine and human self-knowledge and self-love. These were already noticed by Augustine. Divine and human self-knowledge and self-love primarily differ from each other in that our conscious self-knowledge and self-love are not present from the first moment of our existence. Another difference is that human self-knowledge gradually unfolds, and even so, it does not become entirely perfect; the same goes for our self-love. Our internal image formed about ourselves never fully reflects what we are. However, the Father, without residue, perfectly "speaks into" his entire essence to the Son and loves him in the Holy Spirit. The third and most important difference is this: The intensity, the power of God's self-knowledge and the mutual love of the first two persons of the Trinity is such that this knowledge and love transcends the realm of thought (ens rationis) and enters the realm of reality (ens reale): it becomes a separate divine person that really exists, although its immanence also remains.
We assert that the Father is without origin and birth (principium sine principio).
Indeed, the Scripture attributes origin to the other two persons, but never to the Father, and by this, it implicitly teaches his lack of origin. Early patristics applied such descriptors to the Father: without beginning (anarchos, ἄναρχος, ἀναίτιος), uncreated (agenetos, ἀγένητος), unbegotten (agennetos, ἀγέννητος), there is no principle from which he would originate. This statement, however, is linguistically negative in meaning, yet it proclaims the positive that the Father possesses the common divine essence in such a way that He does not receive it from anyone, but only gives it to the Son and, together with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. The Father is "principium sine principio". He is the ultimate solution to the origin of the other two persons.
Paul considers the fatherhood of God so important that – as we have already seen – instead of Father, he sometimes says God. He is primarily the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:3), to whom Jesus turns not only as a human, but also as the second divine person, with feelings of devotion and mutual love; and as the God-man, he comes into the world as the Father's emissary (John 3:17), emptying himself (Phil 2:7) to reconcile the world with the Father and make humans God's children. His entire human life is childlike devotion before the heavenly Father, from whom he received his divine essence, and whom in this sense he can call greater than himself (John 14:28). His perfect self-sacrifice is both a model and a means for humans to become children of the heavenly Father in a non-identical, but analogous sense. Because God also wants to be primarily a Father to us: "For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren" (Romans 8:29; cf. Galatians 3:26). The characteristic warmth of the New Testament is that God spoke the final word to humanity as Father. He sent his Son and revealed through him that he accepts humanity into his merciful love.
The Son originates from the Father through generation, begetting, birth.
This follows from the fact that the second person is a son to the Father not only in a moral sense, but also in a metaphysical sense. According to the Scriptures,
a) the second divine person is the only-begotten Son of the Father in a natural sense, in the metaphysical sense of the word (φύσει not θέσει, that is, not by adoption). However, the natural son originates from the father by generation.
b) This is also formally taught in the New Testament, when it correctly interprets the places in the Old Testament that refer to the Son's birth. So: "To which of the angels did He ever say (the Father): 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'?" (Heb 1:5–Ps 2.) "The seas were not yet, and I was already conceived." (Prov 8:24) Furthermore: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him." (Jn 1:18; cf. 1,1.)
c) The Father is the primal model and source of all fatherhood: "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity [i.e. fatherhood] in heaven and earth is named." (Eph 3:14.) Similarly, the second divine person is the primal model and form of all sonship: "For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29 cf. Gal 3:26) However, sonship is characterized by origination through generation. If this were missing in the Son, it would be a false or distorted primal model and pattern.
Sonship in the natural, metaphysical sense necessarily presupposes generation or being generated. Therefore, he is the "own" Son (Rom 8:3), the "only-begotten" Son (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9) of the Father. Following the letter to the Hebrews (1:5), we can also refer to two expressions of the Psalms: to give birth (110:3), to give life (2:7).
This is also the universal teaching of the Church Fathers even before the Council of Nicaea. According to Justin, the Logos is that God whom the Father has begotten (Justin. I 61 62). The teachings of the Apologists are somewhat obscured by their less successful attempts to associate the birth of the eternal Word with the creation of the world (Clem. Al. Adumbr. (Μ 9, 734), Origen. in Jer hom. 9, 4). The Alexandrians and Tertullian are more precise in this regard (Tertull. Prax 2 8 9; Marc. II 27.). Later, in opposition to the Arians, especially the Greek Church Fathers defended the eternity of the Son's generation (the Arians' main argument was that the begotten is later than the begetter, see: Nyssen. Eunom. (M 45, 441 ff.); Basil. Eunom. II 17; cf. Thom I 42, 2.); also the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be forced to beget, so the Son exists by the will of the Father, that is, he was created), which, however, is as different from blind compulsion as the free decision to create (See Athanas. Ctra Ar. or. 3, 60 ff. cf. 1, 21–28; Nazianz. Or 29, 1.); and finally, its substantial and spiritual nature (according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with God's absolute simplicity (Athanas. Decret. Nicean. 13; Nyssen. Eunom. IV. (M 45, 617 ff.); Cyrill. A. Thesaur. 6.).
We must understand the Son's generation or birth based on the pattern of earthly children's generation, but not in an identical, but in an analogous sense. For God is spirit, so only a spiritual birth can occur with him. However, the analogy is maintained, so we must speak of a real birth. Because here everything is realized that is included in the definition of earthly birth: the living comes from the living, the two have a living connection, and the origin implies essential identity.
When we say "verbum mentis" with Augustine, we emphasize the immanence of the Son. However, when we see birth in the Son's origin, we do not emphasize immanence, but the communication, the "handing over" of identical nature.
The sonship of the second person is also of great significance in the order of salvation. According to Paul, the Father created everything in him that is in heaven and on earth, and everything subsists in him (Col 1:16-17). Even before the creation of the world, the Father chose the called ones in him (Eph 1:4). For the Father constantly speaks his eternal thoughts into the Son, so the Son could be the Father's measure in the creation of the world. Therefore, he is the founder of God's kingdom, he is the norm of all moral perfection, therefore he will be the measure and executor of the last judgement. The final state is formed in such a way that the Father brings together all created values under his sovereignty (Eph 1:10). The Son is also the "causa formalis" of our individual supernatural life, insofar as the grace, the giving of which is the common work of the three divine persons, transfers the image of sonship to the justified human soul. We will become children of the Father in the same form as Christ is in childlike relation to the heavenly Father. Thus we become partakers of Christ's divine sonship and become co-heirs with him. And just as the Spirit connects Christ with the Father, the Holy Spirit will also be the soul of our childlike relationship.
Argument by authority,zero appeal scriptural precedent.
ReplyDeleteAnd the usual non sequiturs. The fact that Jesus is the agent through which ALL the dead are resurrected does not exclude his being one/first of the resurrected even though he is also firstborn/first-fruits of the resurrected see rev ch.1:5 Colossians ch.1:18
Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
ReplyDelete' ‘You are my son;
TODAY I have become your father.’ b""
Hebrews ch1:5ESV"For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son,
TODAY I have begotten you”?..."
Psalms ch.104:29,30ESV"When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30When you send forth your Spirit,c they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground."
Note please that the re-creating of the Jesus in time is considered a Begetting and does not disqualify him from holding the title of only begotten Son.
Thus the notion that his creation in time would disqualify him from holding the title of only begotten Son or firstbegotten Son is discredited.
One blog says, "He was appointed the Son of God with power at his resurrection (Rom. 1:4; Acts 13:33). He was already the Son, but his resurrection confirmed it with power. This declaration is his coronation (Ps. 2)."
ReplyDeleteSo, the author appears to claim that Christ was begotten "today" insofar as God declared him to be Son and carried out his coronation by raising him from the dead.
Here's another explanation that quite frankly makes no sense to me:
"The Lord Jesus was already the Son of God – but He was the Only Begotten Son of God in His divinity (John 3:16). When He became a man, Christ put on the element of humanity, and in His humanity Christ was not yet the Son of God. But in His resurrection – 'today I have begotten You' – Christ brought His humanity into His divinity and was begotten by God in His humanity to be the Son of God (Acts 13:33)."
https://agodman.com/you-are-my-son-today-i-have-begotten-you-christ-was-begotten-to-be-the-firstborn-son-of-god/
Luke ch.1:35NIV"The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
ReplyDeleteSo like the first Adam the second Adam was the Son of God we note that JEHOVAH'S being the cause of his human life and existence is given as the reason that he is to be regarded as the human son of God. Once he died he would cease to exist and the only way for his Sonship to be restored would be for JEHOVAH to beget him anew otherwise divine power would unnecessary:
John ch.6:57NIV"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father..." JEHOVAH is his Father because JEHOVAH caused him to live and keeps him alive. So he is not self-existent. He had an end in time and a restoration in time and still he is called the only begotten there is no necessary reason to put his original Begetting outside of Time.
I agree that his begettal does not have to be placed outside of time. Eternal generation is incoherent, and has been criticized by many Evangelicals. However, Trinitarians are trying to make Jesus the "Son of God" without viewing him as a creature: the eternal generation doctrine claims that Christ's begettal is from eternity to eternity (i.e., timeless). It has no beginning and will never have an end. Yet a major problem is that it's mostly hypothetical and tenuously based on a small selection of biblical texts.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the philosophical problems. If the Begetting is perpetually incomplete how is he the "only" begotten? If anything his Begetting should be the most complete.
DeleteThe official view is that the Son's begettal (generation) has always happened and will always happen because it is completely atemporal.
ReplyDeleteThey understand "only-begotten" in two primary ways:
1) The Son is the only person to be eternally generated by God, so that makes him different from other "sons of God."
2) Some argue that monogenes eventually lost its semantic component of "begotten" and it came to signify something "unique" or sui generis, but a begotten person or biological organism.
Except he wasn't if the generating is ongoing. If I am eternally baking a cake, the cake was never baked and never will be baked. That is why it is incoherent to speak of any occurrence as happening outside of time, if there is no Tempus then there would be no temporal distinctions, no past,no present,no future.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's a rabbit hole and prominent Trinitarians have gainsaid the teaching. This does not prevent others from insisting that the Son is eternally begotten. For starters, yes, they're defining eternal as "timeless" or atemporal. Next, they're arguing that it's possible for a birth and other activities to occur timelessly or without any temporal distinctions although they have introduced the eternal present as a category. I agree with you that the idea is filled with holes, but here is how theologian Louis Berkhof lays out the eternal generation:
ReplyDelete"It is an eternal act of the Father. This naturally follows from the preceding. If the generation of the Son is a necessary act of the Father, so that it is impossible to conceive of Him as not generating, it naturally shares in the eternity of the Father. This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past, but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son. In addition to this it can be inferred from all those passages of Scripture which teach either the pre-existence of the Son or His equality with the Father, Mic. 5:2; John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 5:17, 18, 30, 36; Acts 13:33; John 17:5; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3. The statement of Ps. 2:7, 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,' is generally quoted to prove the generation of the Son, but, according to some, with rather doubtful propriety, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. They surmise that these words refer to the raising up of Jesus as Messianic King, and to the recognition of Him as Son of God in an official sense, and should probably be linked with the promise found in II Sam. 7:14, just as they are in Heb. 1:5."
Luke ch.20:36NIV"and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."
ReplyDelete2Corinthians ch.5:17NIV"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"
To reinforce the idea of the resurrection as being the same as a creation "ab initio"
A death is necessarily an uncreating a resurrection is necessarily a re-creating.
This in the resurrection we get a review of the logos original Begetting in finite time.
Thanks, it's an interesting way to deal with the eternal generation teaching.
ReplyDeleteBernhardinus de Moor:
ReplyDeleteRespond,
a. That on the prior passage, a. ERASMUS on that passage suggests that the accent is able to be changed, and to be πρωτοτόκος πάσης κτίσεως, and that thus the sense is going to be, He first produced all things, and every creature was born of Him. He observes that what follows, that in Him were all things created, etc., verse 16, does not poorly cohere with this sense.
b. Others observe that the Son of God is here said to be begotten, not created, to have been before every creature, just as in verse 17 it is simply said πρὸ πάντων, before all things; and, that AMBROSE discoursed upon this opinion, the same ERASMUS just now cited advises. But this, according to the opinion of others, could be more easily admitted, if πρότοκος or προτερότοκος were read: but they think that a superlative in composition is never taken for a positive, and in comparison with other things is everywhere used of things of the same sort with which it is compared. Nevertheless, it is able to be considered, whether this criticism be more subtle than just, and whether this passage is able to be compared with John 1:15; 15:18
c. And so, with respect had to the superiority and privileges of the Firstborn formerly, they maintain that the Firstborn of every Creature is metonymically nothing other than the Lord of creatures: just as Cæsar was indeed the name of a family, which name adhered to Julius Cæsar on account of his birth from this family; but on account of the dominion that he here obtained, this cognomen was bestowed upon subsequent Emperors because of their succession in the same empire. CALVIN, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book II, chapter XII, § 4,
“I do indeed acknowledge that in the first order of creation and the whole state of nature Christ was put in charge of angels and men as head: for which reason He is called by Paul the firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1:15.”
And in § 7
“For Osiander[4] quite unadvisedly snatches at what no sane person will concede, that supremacy over the Angels does not agree with Christ, that they might enjoy Him as Prince, except as He is man. But it is easily elicited from the words of Paul, Colossians 1:15, that He, as He is the eternal word of God, is the Firstborn of every creature, not because He was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures: but because the whole state of the world, which sort from the beginning was manifest in consummate beauty, had no other beginning: then, that He, as He was made man, was the firstborn from the dead. For in one, brief context the Apostle sets forth both for consideration, that all things were created through the Son, that He might have dominion over the Angels: and through Him man was made, so that He might undertake to be his redeemer, Colossians 1:18, 16.”
Again, chapter XIII, § 2,
“Concerning the name of Firstborn they ignorantly agitate controversy. They allege that God ought to have been born immediately from Adam in the beginning, so that He might be the Firstborn among brethren. For Primogeniture is referred, not to age, but to degree of honor and eminence of virtue.”
Add FRANCISCUS JUNIUS’ Locos Communes theologicos, chapter XXVII, column 59, opera, tome 2; and especially WESSELIUS’ Nestorianismum et Adoptianismum redivivum confutatum, chapter XII, § 157-159, where you may read among other things:
ReplyDelete“For no other reason does the Apostle call Him the Firstborn of every Creature, Colossians 1:15, than because He is the Lord of it. Which Universal Dominion, since it springs immediately from the creation of all things, Paul immediately subjoined in verses 16, 17, for through Him were all things created, etc. But, since that Same Dominion was first founded in the Superiority of His highest Deity and His Natural and eternal Filiation, Paul set down beforehand, who is the Image of the invisible God, etc. But I would have this especially to be observed, that a Genitive added to the word πρωτότοκος/firstborn, that is, when it connotes the genus that is rightly to be attended to, expresses, either the parent, as if I should say, He is the Firstborn of Abraham, of Jacob, of Mary; or collateral sharers of the same nature of Origin…. But the Genitive in this Title, the Firstborn of every creature, is not able to express the Parent, because thus the Son of God would be said to have been begotten of all created things; which is absurd and impious. Neither is it able to signify Collaterals, because then it would denote such Brethren as are of the same essence and specific generation from the Father with the Firstborn Brother…. Therefore, because the Genitive, of every creature, is here able to expres neither the Parent, nor Brethren and sharers of the same specific nature, one of which it ought to signify according to the common manner of speaking, if generation from the Father be connoted in this Title of Firstborn; with good reason I conclude that that Title, here given to Christ, does not connote His divine descent and generation from the Father, but only expresses His Dominion over every Creature, which He made and bears by the word of His power.[5] Certainly then all things flow easily in the Text and Context, when the Firstborn of every Creature is determined to be the same thing as the Prince and Lord of every Creature.”
And this exegesis is certain very probable. What things HERMAN VENEMA[6] discusses in Exercise IV de Vera Christi Divinitate, § 8, pages 157-159, are also able to be considered and weighed.
According to Catholic dogma, there are two inherent, eternal, and substantial processes in God: one by which the second divine person originates from the first as the Son from the Father, which therefore bears the name generation, begetting, birth (generatio), and one by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, which we call spiration (spiratio).
ReplyDeleteA procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις) generally refers to a process that starts from one reality and ends at another, with the content being the real existence of the endpoint originating from the starting point. Since God is simple, in God there can only be immanent processions: the starting and endpoint of the procession cannot exceed the boundaries of the divine reality, but remains entirely within the Godhead. And since the Godhead itself cannot be divided in its essence, the resulting reality can only encompass the entire, undivided divine reality; in other words, divine procession can only be substantial, that is, the resulting reality can only be God. Finally, since God is pure actuality (actus purus), processions in God cannot represent transitions from potentiality to actuality; that is, they are eternal. Therefore, the originator cannot exert a creative, constitutive, or causative activity in relation to the originated; hence, the originating persons cannot be called the cause of the originated but only their principle (principium); the principle is a more general concept than cause and does not necessarily express a causal relationship; for example, the point is the principle of the line, but not its cause.
In the Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:5), the divinity of Christ is proclaimed, referring to these words of the second psalm: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Christ says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26). Based on such biblical revelations, theology talks about the Trinitarian origins or derivations (processiones trinitariae), and about two forms of origins. Theologians refer to the origin of the Son as generation or birth (generatio), and that of the Holy Spirit as simple origin or derivation (processio simpliciter).
Since each person of the Trinity is God, and God has existed eternally, it is utterly impossible for any divine person to precede the others in time; and since the persons share a single nature, no hierarchical difference can arise among them. Therefore, the Trinitarian origins merely signify logical succession, that is, the logical rationale (ratio) and principle basis (principium) of one person are different from those of another. The Father is a Father by constantly transmitting his essence to the Son from eternity, and the Son is a Son by eternally accepting this essence, in which the essence of the Father is eternally reflected. This acceptance, this becoming of the person in reflection, is what we call sonship or birth. The divine essence is the same in all three persons, but the "mode of existence" of this essence is quite different in the Father, who eternally imbues it into the Son, and in the Son, who eternally accepts it, and in the Holy Spirit, to whom the Father and the Son also eternally transmit it, and who accepts it from them.
The earliest church fathers tried to illustrate the birth of the Son with analogies. Just as the rays of the sun constantly emanate from the sun as long as it exists, and just as water constantly trickles from an inexhaustible spring as long as the spring exists; the Son is similarly constantly born from the Father, indeed eternally, since the Father exists eternally. The "today" in the second Psalm refers to God's "eternal present," as there is no past and future, yesterday and tomorrow, for Him - as the dogma about God's eternity teaches. The Trinitarian origins are eternal origins. The church fathers' analogies are only partly accurate, and can be critiqued from multiple perspectives. For instance, the sun is the physical cause of the rays, the spring is of the brook, but physical causality must be excluded from God: God is not a cause of Himself (causa sui), but the spiritual rationale of His being (ratio sui), which means that the rationale of His existence is not to be found outside Him, but within Him. Nor are the aforementioned analogies good because the spring's water would be more if it didn't flow out as a brook, but the divine essence cannot lose anything in the Trinitarian origins, neither with the birth of the Son, nor with the origin of the Holy Spirit; since God is absolutely unchanging and indivisible. Due to the same unchangeability, neither the Son can gain anything extra by being born, nor the Holy Spirit by originating. The birth of the Son and the origin of the Holy Spirit - as stated above - may only create a different mode of existence for the same divine essence, but by no means a change. Because of this identity of essence, classical Trinitarianism calls the Trinitarian origins substantial origins (processiones substantiales). The latter also means that not only the originator but also the originated is God, as these origins are the various forms of existence of the common divine essence (substantia).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Augustine, since God is spirit, we should look for analogies in the realm of spiritual processes when we want to study God's inner life.
One of the most important manifestations of our spiritual life is the formation of concepts, the birth of our notions. Just as an unexpressed concept (verbum mentis) is conceived, born in our consciousness, the Son is born from the Father in the same way. The Son is essentially nothing more than the concept that the Father forms of himself, his self-knowledge, which on the one hand has always been there, and on the other hand possesses such power, intensity that it becomes a separate person.
Since God is the infinite perfection of all values (true, good, beautiful, holy), and these values provoke spiritual love from the soul, the Father also infinitely loves himself as a totality of value, and this infinite love must also be reflected in the Son. The love of the Father reflected in the Son and the reflection of this love in the Father, as if “bouncing back”, is essentially one and eternal love, and it is also so intense that it becomes a separate person, the person of the Holy Spirit.
Augustine's analogy has three advantages:
a) It aptly shows that we can rightly speak of a spiritual kind of birth and origin, such as we encounter with the persons of the Trinity.
b) What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge, and what is created as love, can also be "immanent": the originated does not "step out" of the originator in this case, just as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life of the Son, indeed his entire essence, is identical with that of the Father, he does not step out of him, he does not separate from him in any reality; similarly, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remains the same with the other two persons and stays within them.
b) What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge, and what is created as love, can also be "immanent": the originated does not "step out" of the originator in this case, just as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life of the Son, indeed his entire essence, is identical with that of the Father, he does not step out of him, he does not separate from him in any reality; similarly, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remains the same with the other two persons and stays within them.
ReplyDeletec) The divine and human self-knowledge are similar in that the birth of both can be equally referred to as conception and birth. Since the conception and birth of our thoughts coincide in time, not as it happens in the birth and conception of animals and humans. That's why these two expressions are completely synonymous: "the Father has been begetting the Son from eternity", and "the Father has been giving birth to the Son from eternity".
Of course, there are essential differences between divine and human self-knowledge and self-love. These were already noticed by Augustine. Divine and human self-knowledge and self-love primarily differ from each other in that our conscious self-knowledge and self-love are not present from the first moment of our existence. Another difference is that human self-knowledge gradually unfolds, and even so, it does not become entirely perfect; the same goes for our self-love. Our internal image formed about ourselves never fully reflects what we are. However, the Father, without residue, perfectly "speaks into" his entire essence to the Son and loves him in the Holy Spirit. The third and most important difference is this: The intensity, the power of God's self-knowledge and the mutual love of the first two persons of the Trinity is such that this knowledge and love transcends the realm of thought (ens rationis) and enters the realm of reality (ens reale): it becomes a separate divine person that really exists, although its immanence also remains.
We assert that the Father is without origin and birth (principium sine principio).
Indeed, the Scripture attributes origin to the other two persons, but never to the Father, and by this, it implicitly teaches his lack of origin. Early patristics applied such descriptors to the Father: without beginning (anarchos, ἄναρχος, ἀναίτιος), uncreated (agenetos, ἀγένητος), unbegotten (agennetos, ἀγέννητος), there is no principle from which he would originate. This statement, however, is linguistically negative in meaning, yet it proclaims the positive that the Father possesses the common divine essence in such a way that He does not receive it from anyone, but only gives it to the Son and, together with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. The Father is "principium sine principio". He is the ultimate solution to the origin of the other two persons.
Paul considers the fatherhood of God so important that – as we have already seen – instead of Father, he sometimes says God. He is primarily the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:3), to whom Jesus turns not only as a human, but also as the second divine person, with feelings of devotion and mutual love; and as the God-man, he comes into the world as the Father's emissary (John 3:17), emptying himself (Phil 2:7) to reconcile the world with the Father and make humans God's children. His entire human life is childlike devotion before the heavenly Father, from whom he received his divine essence, and whom in this sense he can call greater than himself (John 14:28). His perfect self-sacrifice is both a model and a means for humans to become children of the heavenly Father in a non-identical, but analogous sense. Because God also wants to be primarily a Father to us: "For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren" (Romans 8:29; cf. Galatians 3:26). The characteristic warmth of the New Testament is that God spoke the final word to humanity as Father. He sent his Son and revealed through him that he accepts humanity into his merciful love.
ReplyDeleteThe Son originates from the Father through generation, begetting, birth.
This follows from the fact that the second person is a son to the Father not only in a moral sense, but also in a metaphysical sense. According to the Scriptures,
a) the second divine person is the only-begotten Son of the Father in a natural sense, in the metaphysical sense of the word (φύσει not θέσει, that is, not by adoption). However, the natural son originates from the father by generation.
b) This is also formally taught in the New Testament, when it correctly interprets the places in the Old Testament that refer to the Son's birth. So: "To which of the angels did He ever say (the Father): 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'?" (Heb 1:5–Ps 2.) "The seas were not yet, and I was already conceived." (Prov 8:24) Furthermore: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him." (Jn 1:18; cf. 1,1.)
c) The Father is the primal model and source of all fatherhood: "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity [i.e. fatherhood] in heaven and earth is named." (Eph 3:14.) Similarly, the second divine person is the primal model and form of all sonship: "For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29 cf. Gal 3:26) However, sonship is characterized by origination through generation. If this were missing in the Son, it would be a false or distorted primal model and pattern.
Sonship in the natural, metaphysical sense necessarily presupposes generation or being generated. Therefore, he is the "own" Son (Rom 8:3), the "only-begotten" Son (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9) of the Father. Following the letter to the Hebrews (1:5), we can also refer to two expressions of the Psalms: to give birth (110:3), to give life (2:7).
This is also the universal teaching of the Church Fathers even before the Council of Nicaea. According to Justin, the Logos is that God whom the Father has begotten (Justin. I 61 62). The teachings of the Apologists are somewhat obscured by their less successful attempts to associate the birth of the eternal Word with the creation of the world (Clem. Al. Adumbr. (Μ 9, 734), Origen. in Jer hom. 9, 4). The Alexandrians and Tertullian are more precise in this regard (Tertull. Prax 2 8 9; Marc. II 27.). Later, in opposition to the Arians, especially the Greek Church Fathers defended the eternity of the Son's generation (the Arians' main argument was that the begotten is later than the begetter, see: Nyssen. Eunom. (M 45, 441 ff.); Basil. Eunom. II 17; cf. Thom I 42, 2.); also the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be forced to beget, so the Son exists by the will of the Father, that is, he was created), which, however, is as different from blind compulsion as the free decision to create (See Athanas. Ctra Ar. or. 3, 60 ff. cf. 1, 21–28; Nazianz. Or 29, 1.); and finally, its substantial and spiritual nature (according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with God's absolute simplicity (Athanas. Decret. Nicean. 13; Nyssen. Eunom. IV. (M 45, 617 ff.); Cyrill. A. Thesaur. 6.).
ReplyDeleteWe must understand the Son's generation or birth based on the pattern of earthly children's generation, but not in an identical, but in an analogous sense. For God is spirit, so only a spiritual birth can occur with him. However, the analogy is maintained, so we must speak of a real birth. Because here everything is realized that is included in the definition of earthly birth: the living comes from the living, the two have a living connection, and the origin implies essential identity.
When we say "verbum mentis" with Augustine, we emphasize the immanence of the Son. However, when we see birth in the Son's origin, we do not emphasize immanence, but the communication, the "handing over" of identical nature.
The sonship of the second person is also of great significance in the order of salvation. According to Paul, the Father created everything in him that is in heaven and on earth, and everything subsists in him (Col 1:16-17). Even before the creation of the world, the Father chose the called ones in him (Eph 1:4). For the Father constantly speaks his eternal thoughts into the Son, so the Son could be the Father's measure in the creation of the world. Therefore, he is the founder of God's kingdom, he is the norm of all moral perfection, therefore he will be the measure and executor of the last judgement. The final state is formed in such a way that the Father brings together all created values under his sovereignty (Eph 1:10). The Son is also the "causa formalis" of our individual supernatural life, insofar as the grace, the giving of which is the common work of the three divine persons, transfers the image of sonship to the justified human soul. We will become children of the Father in the same form as Christ is in childlike relation to the heavenly Father. Thus we become partakers of Christ's divine sonship and become co-heirs with him. And just as the Spirit connects Christ with the Father, the Holy Spirit will also be the soul of our childlike relationship.