JB_Reformed Baptist said:
I appreciate your early church history quotes, but I will wait on those scriptures and keep in mind what you said above in regards to them. THX
JB_Reformed Baptist said:
I appreciate your early church history quotes, but I will wait on those scriptures and keep in mind what you said above in regards to them. THX
I've added as well a few fragments from a chap that has addressed the issue some what.
A Brief Analysis of the Doctrine
The notion of Jesus’ “eternal sonship” is found to be faulty from the following particulars.
Eternal Existence, Yes — Eternal Generation, No
There are numerous biblical passages that affirm the eternality of Christ (e.g., Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5, etc. — especially note the verbal tenses in the New Testament texts). In addition, many Old Testament passages that speak of “Jehovah” — a designation suggesting one “who is absolutely self-existent” (Stone, 15), i.e., one having no beginning or dependence upon another (Exodus 3:14) — are applied to Christ (see: Isaiah 40:3/Matthew 3:3; Isaiah 44:6/Revelation 1:17; Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc.).
Paul frequently referred to Jesus as “Lord” (kurios) — a term used in the Greek Old Testament to replace the sacred name, Yahweh (Jehovah). “Paul could not have used this word as his almost exclusive title for Jesus without in his mind identifying Jesus as Yahweh” (Cottrell, 1996, I.76).
On the other hand, there is
no biblical text that speaks of an “eternal generation” or an “eternal procession” of the pre-incarnate Christ.
A Father Precedes A Son
If language is to have any discernible meaning at all, it is not possible to have both an eternal “son,” and an eternal “father,” for in the nature of the case, a “Father” is
alwaysperceived to be anterior (prior to) to his “son,” and a “son” subsequent to his “father.”
Thus, if God is the “father” of the pre-incarnate son, the son
cannot be eternal; hence, must have been created — as the heretic Arius alleged, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm.
The dogma of “eternal generation” paved the way for the Arian view — though it would be unfair to equate modern denominationalists with the total Arian theological package.
Begotten Is Not Eternal
If it is the case that the Second Person of the Godhead was “begotten,” he is not “eternal God,” for eternality is an intrinsic quality of deity; God is from “everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2).
If a doctrine, by necessary implication, negates the deity of Jesus Christ, can one be considered faithful who espouses it?
Contradictory Language
The dogma is discredited logically by self-contradiction. To contend that the Son was “eternally begotten” is a manifest contradiction of terms. It is the equivalent of saying, “Christ had an eternal beginning.” Can an object “begin,” and not have been begun?
Mumbo-Jumbo Theology
Advocates of the “eternal Son” dogma are forced to resort to some of the most discombobulated jargon to explain their position. One writer says:
“If God is the perfect Mind, action of the same nature with this will enter into his self-consciousness also. He too will reproduce himself in thought, and recognize the reproduction as identical with the Mind that thought it forth” (W. Clarke, 173).
Another says: “there must be in God a producing not subject to time, and productions which have no beginning” (McClintock, IX.889).
When the language employed in an attempt to explain an issue becomes such a linguistic maze that not even the zealous advocate for the theory can convey it rationally, one may be assured that the idea behind it is suspect. Cottrell has observed that the terms “eternal generation,” “procession,” etc.:
“were never understood in their ordinary senses; in fact, they were never given any content whatsoever. They have served as empty code words which we do not need as a support for the concept of the ontological Trinity and the reality of Christ’s full deity” (2002, 256).
Eternal Sonship Not in Harmony With the Prophets
The concept of “eternal sonship” is inconsistent with the language of the prophets. Isaiah declared that the virgin would “conceive” and “bear a son,” whose name would be called Immanuel (7:14; Matthew 1:22-23).
The “son” status is said to follow Mary’s conception. If “conception” is the equivalent of “begotten,” and Christ was “eternally begotten,” would not this suggest that he was “eternally conceived”?
Later Isaiah prophetically declared, “a child is born, a son is given” (9:6). Does not this connect the role of being “son” with that of the birth of the child? If not, how can one ever have confidence in the meaningful interpretation of language? And if the “son” of this text is an “eternal son,” would this also imply that the “child” is an “eternal child”?
Psalm 2 Incompatible With Eternal Sonship
Psalm 2 is a prophecy of Christ, as evidenced by the citation of the text by New Testament writers (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). The passage frequently is used as a proof-text for the theory of “eternal generation.” Or at least there is the vigorous protest that this psalm does not negate that concept (Alexander, I.14-16).
It is not our purpose here to discuss the meaning of the passage in the overall context of the Bible, but merely to demonstrate that the language of the text itself is incompatible with the theory under review.
The expression “this day have I begotten” reveals that a “begettal”—whatever its nature—has a commencement point, a “day” when it takes place. The term “never can, by any figure, or allowable latitude of construction, be applied to express eternity” (A. Clarke,III.223). To speak of an “eternal begettal” is to employ nonsensical language.
Compare with this another Messianic prophecy (cf. Kirkpatrick, 538). “
I will make himmy firstborn” (Psalm 89:27; emphasis added). If Christ was the “firstborn” (Son) literally and eternally, how can this be portrayed as a
future event?
Eternal Sonship Contradicts Explicit Scripture
The “eternal sonship” notion contradicts the explicit testimony of scripture. The angel Gabriel informed Mary that her miraculously conceived child “shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:32, 35) — not that he
always has been such.
Some contend that the text indicates that he was to be called the “Son of God” because that is what he was, and forever had been. But this ignores the grammar of the text. Godet explained:
“By the word
also (‘therefore
also’) the angel alludes to his preceding words:
He shall be called Son of the Highest [v. 32]. We might paraphrase it: ‘And it is precisely for this reason that I said to thee, that!’” (I.93).
In other words, it was because of the
supernatural conception that he was to be called “Son of God.”
Second Person Never Called “Son of God” Prior To Physical Birth
The expression “son of God” is applied to Christ more than 40 times in the New Testament. In not a single case is it used of his existence
before he was born of Mary (Barnes, 21).
The Logical Consequence
As observed earlier, the logical consequence of the concept of “eternal generation” is that there was a time when the Second Person of the Godhead did not exist — though most who advocate the doctrine repudiate the implication of the teaching. But, as a recent writer stated it, with no apology for the conclusion, Christ had “his
origin … back in the ages of eternity, when he became the divine offspring (Son) of God before anything or anyone else ever came into existence” (Pribble, 82; emphasis added).
Even those who argue for “eternal sonship” seem to struggle with the concept, yielding finally to the pressures of church history, rather than sound interpretive procedure. John Walvoord conceded that the connection of Jesus’ “sonship,” with the
incarnation, “has the advantage of being simple in concept.” On the other hand, he muses, if that is the case, there is no explanation for the “relationship” between God and Christ prior to the incarnation. This, he says, “requires some definition.”
Why must it? Is it not enough to know that both are deity, and in conjunction with the “eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14), existed eternally? Why must one resort to a theory that contorts reasonable language beyond common sense recognition? The distinguished professor offered not a solitary biblical argument for the “eternal generation” position.
Walvoord concedes that the “eternal sonship” idea has “many problems,” but he thinks he must be so since “the consensus of the great theologians of the church and the great church councils” maintained this view for centuries. Particularly, he declares, this has been “the main doctrine of the church, since the Council of Nicaea in 325” (39). What church? The church of the New Testament had receded into the shadows already.
WAYNE JACKSON
