Eternal Generation of the Son – Is it Biblical?

‘Begotten’ implies Subordination.

According to the Bible, the Son was begotten by the Father (E.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16).

In support of this concept, the Bible also describes Him as the “Son of God,” “born of God” (1 John 5:18), and as living “because of the Father” (John 6:57). 

This principle is also indirectly supported by statements that the Father gave the Son His being and authority. For example, the Father gave the Son:

        • “To have life in Himself” (John 5:26);
        • “All the fullness of Deity” (Col 2:9; 1:19);
        • “All authority … in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18); and
        • To be worshiped (Phil 2:9-10; Heb 1:6).

That the Father generated the Son implies that the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

Eternal Generation

The theory of Eternal Generation explains “begotten” and “generated” in a way that describes the Son as co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Hodge defined Eternal Generation as follows:

    1. “An eternal, personal act of the Father,
    2. Wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will,
    3. He generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead,
    4. Without division, alienation, or change,
    5. So that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person,
    6. And eternally continues,
    7. Not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”
      (Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 182.)

[Show More]

Eternal Generation implies equality.

Co-eternal

Firstly, while ‘begetting’ implies that the Son came into existence at a point in time in the past, ‘Eternal Generation’ proposes that the ‘begetting’ is ‘eternal’, meaning it has no beginning or end. Consequently, the Son is co-eternal with the Father. [Show More]

Co-equal

Secondly, if the Father begat the Son “by choice of will,” then the Father empowers or upholds the Son, meaning that the Son depends on the Father for His existence and power and, therefore, is subordinate to the Father.

To explain the Son as NOT dependent on the Father for His existence, ‘Eternal Generation’ teaches that the Father generates the Son, not because of the Father’s decision or will, but “by necessity of nature.” In other words, generating the Son is an essential part of what God is. In this way, ‘Eternal Generation’ argues that the Son is co-equal with the Father. [Show More]

Key part of the Trinity doctrine

‘Eternal Generation’ is therefore a key element of the Trinity doctrine. [Show More]

Objections to Eternal Generation

(1) Never-ending generation is not Biblical.

Hodge’s definition says it is an “eternal” act that “eternally continues.” In other words, it is a process without beginning or end. But there is no evidence in the Bible to say that ‘begotten’ is a never-ending process. In the Bible, the Son was begotten in the eternity past. [Show More]

(2) It is not the Father’s act.

In the Bible, the Father begat the Son. But Hodge’s definition of ‘Eternal Generation’ states that the Son was generated “by necessity of nature, not by choice of will.” In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one single “nature.” Therefore, in ‘Eternal Generation’, the Son’s begetting is not the act of a Person. It is not the Father specifically who generates the Son, but God; the Trinity.

To explain this slightly differently, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are “not three parts of God” (Theopedia) but each is the entire God Almighty. So, how can the Son be excluded from generating Himself if He is the entire God? It can only be done by a verbal denial, but verbal denials are meaningless if the substance of the matter contradicts such denials.

(3) It is not the generation of a Person but a mode.

By saying that the Father has begotten the Son, the Bible implies that the Father has generated the entire being of the Son.

In contrast, since the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single substance and Being, the Father does not generate the Son’s substance or mind. In ‘Eternal Generation’, as per Hodge’s definition above, the Father only “generates the person of the Son” (not the essence) “by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead.”

However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Persons are not “persons” in the ordinary sense of the term because each ‘Person’ does not have His own ‘body’ or mind or will. The three ‘Persons’ are one single Being and share a single mind. (See Article) Therefore, in ‘Eternal Generation’, neither the substance nor the mind or will of the Son is generated. What is generated is not a Person with His own mind and will, as the Bible envisages, but merely a mode of being. [Show More]

 

Scriptural Support

GotQuestions lists the verses below in support of ‘Eternal Generation’ but not one of them says that this generation is a never-ending or involuntary process. I comment as follows on the verses GotQuestions quotes:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) 

Comment: Based on the grammatical structure of the Greek text, another article argues that this is better translated as “the Word was LIKE God,” similar to Philippians 2, which said that, before His incarnation, “He existed in the form of God” (Phil 2:6).

Based on this and the subsequent verses, one may conclude that the Son, from the perspective of the Creation, has always existed. However, the ‘beginning’ in this verse is probably the Genesis 1 creation; not some metaphysical beginning. It does not say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. There is also no indication of ongoing or involuntary generation of the Son. 

The Word’s glory is “as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14). “God … gave his only Son.” (John 3:16) 

Comment: These verses merely state that the Father generated the Son; nothing about eternal or involuntary generation.

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18)  

Comment: This even implies that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s for, while the Father is invisible, the Son is visible (cf. Col 1:15).

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) 

Comment: This verse implies that only the Father and Son have “life in himself.” However, while the Son has received “life” from the Father, the Father has received “life” from no one. This is one of several indications in the Bible that the Son received from the Father everything He has. This supports the view that the Son was generated by and is subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

“I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (John 14:11) “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us.” (John 17:21) 

Comment: These verses explain themselves: To be “in” another is the same as to be “one” with another. The Father and Son are “one” and “in” one another just like Christians must be “one” and “in” one another. It does not mean to be literally one being. For a further discussion, see – I and the Father are one.

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3) 

Comment: In isolation, this may seem as if the Son upholds the universe by His own power. However:

The pronoun “his” is used twice in this quote and four times in Hebrews 1:1-3. In the other instances, “His” always refers to God, meaning that the Son upholds the universe by the word of God’s power.

Furthermore, the previous verse states that God created all things through His Son. It follows that God maintains all things through His Son.

That means that the Son has existed for as long as this universe has existed. However, God exists beyond this universe. There is an incomprehensible infinity beyond our universe that we know nothing about. The Son was begotten in that infinity. Time, as we know it, is only part of our universe. But if time of some kind exists in that infinity our universe, that the Son existed when this universe was brought into being by no means that He has ‘always’ existed in the infinity beyond time.

In conclusion, after listing these verses, Gotquestions vaguely concludes that “these verses … suggest that the relationship between Father and Son is one that has existed for all eternity and that the relationship depicts one of ontological equality.” In my view, neither of these points has even remotely been proven.

Conclusions

The Bible is clear that the Father generated the Son and that the Son is subordinate to the Father but the theory of Eternal Generation attempts to explain “begotten” in such a way that the Son is independent from and equal to the Father.

This discussion shows that Eternal Generation is largely based on extra-Biblical speculation. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Deut 29:29) but theologians insist on explaining the unexplainable. The theory of the Eternal Generation reveals man’s arrogance.


Other Articles

The Trinity Doctrine and Modalism Compared

Modalism

In Modalism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. Like an actor on a stage, God sometimes appears as the Father and other times as the Son or the Spirit, but it is one and the same Person. For example, He appears as the Father in the creation, the Son in Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

For the Modalist, Christ is not only God, he is the Father himself. This would mean that the Father suffered and died on the Cross. This view was rejected in the third century. Sabellius, who taught a version of it, was excommunicated in AD 220.

The Trinity Doctrine

The Trinity doctrine, as taught by the mainstream church, including most Protestant churches, like Modalism, regards the Son and the Holy Spirit to be “God” but describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons. To maintain the oneness of God, so that the doctrine does not teach Tri-theism (three Gods), the Father, Son, and Spirit share one undivided essence or substance. It is then said that they are one Being with a single mind and will.

So, both Modalism and the Trinity doctrine proclaim one God and one substance. But while Modalism describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as modes, the Trinity doctrine describes them as Persons. For the Trinity doctrine to differ from Modalism, personhood must be real. For three reasons, in my view, the Persons in the Trinity doctrine are NOT real persons but mere modes of God:

1. The Persons are Identical.

Firstly, on the principle of divine simplicity, a remnant of ancient Greek philosophy, but still today accepted by theologians as valid, the Trinity doctrine teaches that God does not have parts. Consequently, the three Persons are not three parts of God. Rather, each of them is the full divine essence. In other words, each Person is the entire God. This means they are identical, which means they are mere modes of God. [Show More]

2. The Persons share one single Mind.

Secondly, in the orthodox doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will.

Secondly, while the term ‘person’ implies a self, a thinker, with his own will and mind, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will because the mind and will are rooted in the substance of God, not in the Persons. [Show More]

The disastrous consequence is that the Father cannot love the Son and the Son cannot love the Father. Similarly, the Son cannot truly intercede with the Father.

Ordinary Christians may think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each having His own mind, but that would be three Gods (ri-theism).

Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the standard Trinity doctrine, share one single mind and will, they are mere modes of God.

3. Relations make no difference.

In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as already stated, the three Persons are identical because they share one single divine substance and one single mind. The only difference between them is their relationships, namely:

      • The Father begets the Son and
      • The Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son in Western catholic thinking). [Show More]
The following from Thomas Aquinas:

“So then the only question left is what makes the persons distinct from one another? What makes the distinction real? The answer is that they are distinct only in their relation to one another.” [Summa 1028]

“The divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations.” [Summa 1036]

Aquinas’ justification of the view that the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well confirms that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is their relations, for, he says, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then the Spirit is the same as the Son because both have a relationship only with the Father. For the Son to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit, there must be a relationship between them as well. [Summa 1036] Quoting Aquinas:

“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He (the Holy Ghost) could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him (the Son).”

However, in the Trinity, created beings cannot see or understand what those distinctions are: “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, as far as we can tell, there is no distinction. [Show More]

Conclusion

In conclusion, in Modalism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. In contrast, the Trinity doctrine describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Persons but if we analyze what these Persons are, we discover that they are identical in all respects. Consequently, they effectively are “modes” of God. [Show More]

Consequently, the Trinity doctrine is a form of Modalism. Claims to the contrary does not help. We need to consider the substance of the matter.

The Arian Controversy was a war between two main views:

One Being – Second-century Modalism, third-century Sabellianism, and fourth-century Nicene theology claimed that only one divine Being exists. Different theologians explained this differently, but in all instances, there is only one divine Being:

        • Modalism said that ‘Son’ and “Father’ are two names for the same Being.
        • Sabellianism described them as parts of one Being.
        • In Nicene theology, the Son is part of the Father.
        • The Trinity doctrine describes them as one Being who is divided invisibly.

Three Beings – Second-century Logos theology, Origen’s third-century theology, and fourth-century Arianism taught three distinct divine Beings, but with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father.

The ‘one Being’ view is based on the Old Testament (OT). It argues that the OT reveals only one divine Being. Since the Son is also divine, He must somehow be part of that one divine Being.

The ‘three Beings’ view accepts that the Son is a second divine Being and tries to find evidence of such a second Being in the OT.


Other Articles

TABLE OF CONTENTS