Following the previous article on the limitations of theology, we look at a more specific issue here, concerning the tri-unity of God and eternal generation. The central question is: whether eternal generation is essential to the biblical teaching on the tri-unity of God? Is eternal generation taught in Scripture?
Let’s look at different positions on this issue (quotes in quotation marks or in italics).
There are those who deny eternal generation is essential to the biblical doctrine of trinity, and deny that the doctrine of eternal generation as popularly expounded is explicitly taught in Scripture:
Calvin agreed with the position of Augustine on the union of essence of distinction of persons between the Father and the Son, but he did not think Augustine’s explanation was helpful (Institutes, I, xiii, 17-21, 19 on Augustine).
[Calvin reviewed the general views of the church fathers, and then quoted Augustine] But it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him [Augustine], than get bewildered in vain speculation by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.
… should be a warning to us to be more docility than acumen to the discussion of this question, never to attempt to search after God anywhere but in his sacred word, and never to speak or think of him farther than we have it for our guide. But if the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, subsisting in the one Godhead (certainly a subject of great difficulty), gives more trouble and annoyance to some intellects than is meet, let us remember that the human mind enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus submit to be guided by divine oracles, how much soever the mystery may be beyond our reach.
Charles Hodge in Systematic Theology (v1. p.467):
We have here the three essential facts involved in the doctrine of Trinity, namely, unity of essence, distinction of persons, and subordination without any attempt at explanation. [Hodge’s comments on Calvin’s view of Augustine’s explanation of the relation between the Father and the Son]
Hodge then talked about eternal generation specifically (p.468-470):
The relation, therefore, of the Second Person to the First is that of filiation or sonship. But what is meant by the term, neither the Bible nor the ancient creeds explain. It may be sameness of nature; as a son is of the same nature as his father. it may be likeness, …. It may be derivation of essence, …. Or, it may be something altogether inscrutable and to us incomprehensible.
The Nicene fathers, instead of leaving the matter where the Scriptures leave it, undertake to explain what is meant by sonship, and teach that it means derivation of essence. … This is what they mean by Eternal Generation. Concerning which it was taught, [Hodge then listed out five principles of this doctrine]
B. B. Warfield on Trinity in ISBE 1915[1]:
We may content ourselves with simply observing that to the New Testament there is but one only living and true God; but that to it Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are each God in the fullest sense of the term; and yet Father, Son and Spirit stand over against each other as I, and Thou, and He. In this composite fact the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity is but the statement in wellguarded language of this composite fact. Through out the whole course of the many efforts to formulate the doctrine exactly, which have followed one another during the entire history of the church, indeed, the principle which has ever determined the result has always been determination to do justice in conceiving the relations of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, on the one hand to the unity of God, and, on the other, to the true Deity of the Son and Spirit and their distinct personalities. When we have said these three things, then–that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person–we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.
Warfield also analyzed the view of John Calvin, with reference to Hodge (Works, v5, p245-251):
Although he taught that the Son of begotten of the Father, and of course begotten before all time, or as we say from all eternity, he seems to have drawn back from the doctrine of “eternal generation” as it was expounded by the Nicene Fathers. … Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless. [then Warfield cited Institutes, I. xiii. 29]
It is enough, he says in effect, to believe that the Son derives from the Father, the Spirit from the Father and the Son, without encumbering ourselves wit a speculation upon the nature of the eternally generating act to which these hypostases are referred. [then Warfield cited Hodge]
John Frame on eternal generation in Doctrine of God (p.707-714):
The divine Son and Spirit are analogous to human sonship and spirituality. But how far does the analogy reach?
[Frame commented on Calvin and other Reformed theologians] The terms Father and Son bring to our minds the idea of generation. But when we try to apply that idea to the divine being, words fail us. …[Frame then analyzed several passages commonly used to support eternal generation]
After quoting Hodge, Frame quoted Robert Dabney
[Eternal generation] seems to me rather a rational explanation of revealed facts, than a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, none should dogmatize.
Frame concludes:
Much of this reflection, it seems to be, really amounts to putting the names of the three persons into different forms, without any increase in knowledge or edification. I have tried to treat these discussions with respect and to point out what I think can be gained from them. But I confess that I cannot escape the notion that at least some of this discussion amounts to playing with words.
Millard Erickson on essential elements of the doctrine of trinity (Christian theology. 2nd ed. p362-363).
- The unity of God is basic.
- The deity of each of the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must be affirmed.
- The threeness and the oneness of God are not in the same respect.
- The Trinity is eternal.
- The function of one member of the Trinity may for a time be subordinate to one or both of the other members, but that does not mean he is in any way inferior in essence.
- In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible.
Also see Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology.
On the other side are those who regard eternal generation as essential to the doctrine of Trinity. Examples are many. Here only shows Robert Letham (The Holy Trinity, rev. p188-204):
He talked about “Constitutive Elements of the Trinitarian Settlement”, and emphasized in the beginning that “violation of any one leads to major problems”. The list is:
- One Being, Three Persons.
- Consubstantiality.
- Indivisible Will, Inseparable Operations.
- Perichoresis.
- Eternal Generation, Eternal Procession.
- The Taxis.
The supporters of the doctrine of eternal generation grounded their exegetical argument in the word “begotten”. But the question is not whether the Son is the only begotten Son of the Father, which no orthodoxy Christians deny, but whether this word teaches explicitly eternal generation. The question is also not about the translation of the term as “only” or “only begotten”; the question is whether “only begotten” means eternal generation.
Letham said:
The doctrine of eternal generation, however, does not stand or fall on the basis of this one word. Its validity is related to the teaching of the eternal sonship and the relation of the Son to the Father in the undivided being of God.
Again, he seems to be confusing two different issues (as often appears in similar debates). The eternal sonship of God is affirmed by all orthodox Christians since it is explicitly taught in Scripture. But does eternal sonship means eternal generation? This is a huge leap in reason, and in human reason. This is exactly what Calvin and others above had cautioned about. Can we affirm the eternal sonship without affirming eternal generation? Can we affirm eternal sonship without explaining eternal sonship?
Then Letham quoted Gilles Emery (Emery, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in Thomas Aquinas”):
Emery remarks that “Catholic faith requires the premise of immanent procession in order to safeguard the divinity and the distinct subsistence of the persons, in order to counter Arianism and Sabellianism”.
At the end of the section on eternal generation:
Eternal generation underlines the point that the Father is the Father of the Son in eternity before he is even Father of the creature in time. Thus generation highlights an irreversible hypostatic order.
These two paragraphs indicated the motives behind making eternal generation essential. It is not necessarily that the Scripture explicitly teaches this doctrine (at least not with the same clarity as the oneness of God, three persons of God).They think this is the only way to combat heresies, if not the only way to articulate orthodoxy. Thus they are very sensitive to any reluctance of accepting, not to say denial, of this doctrine, as they see this is nothing less than opening doors for heresies, if not already in heresy. Their motives are noble, however, are they biblical?
“Eternal generation” aims to explain what “eternal sonship” means, or how “eternal sonship” comes about. This means to explain the origin of the Son in one sense or another (depends on what you think is generated). Are we able to comprehend such a topic? Can we really fathom something as the “origin” of the Sonship? We are in time-space, and God transcends time, space, and our mind. Can we accept a biblical doctrine without trying to explain it? Can we accept the oneness of God without explaining how God can be one? Do we really have to spell out eternal generation or process to safeguard the biblical teachings on God? Is believing this doctrine by faith or by human logic? When we say we try to safeguard a doctrine, safeguard it by what and from what? If someone rejects it because of elevating reason above faith, can we safeguard the doctrine by letting reason penetrating into revelation? The “necessity” of eternal generation is not necessitated by Scripture, but by a human effort to defend the Scripture, or a human effort to articulate the teaching of Scripture.
We must distinguish the biblical revelation and our understanding/articulation of it. These two are related, of course, but not identical. Our articulation, or any articulation of a biblical teaching is never perfect as the Scripture is perfect, and it never has the authority as Scripture. The biblical doctrine revealed is one, but the human articulation of it is not one. There is no creed equal to or above the Scripture. That means, no creed or human articulation of biblical teaching is “essential” to the Christian faith. They are at best helpful, but none is essential. Even the term “trinity” is not to be considered essential. The apostles did not employ this term, but they affirmed the biblical teaching of the Godhead. To rely upon one way of articulation is to deny the ultimate authority and unique perfection of Scripture. When you say something extrabiblical is essential to Christian faith, no matter it is a term or an expression, you are basically saying something extrabiblical has biblical authority.
This mentality runs deep in the Reformed tradition, though not limited to it. Some of the contemporary debates are not centered on biblical evidence, but historical consensus or theological construction. A great tradition is often the root of traditionalism. Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox started with a great tradition. John Murray’s reminder is still important (Works. iv, p8-9):
As it is true that ecclesia reformata Reformanda est so also is it true that theologia reformata reformanda est. When any generation is content to reply upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.
A theology that does not build upon the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history. A theology that relies upon the past evades the demands of the present.
[1] https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/T/trinity-1.html
