The Trinitarian doctrines of the Eternal Generation [EG] of the Son and the Eternal Procession [EP] of the Holy Spirit seems to me can still affirm the necessary existence [NE] of both the Son and Spirit, but implies a denial of their self-existence [SE]. Is there a way to affirm both while affirming EG and EP?
Thursday, December 31, 2065
Friday, December 30, 2050
The Most Important Blogposts in This Blog
This blogpost lists what I (subjectively) believe to be the most important blogposts in this blog. There are three sections. The first section is on the Deity of Christ. The second section is on the Trinity or the Plurality of God. The third section is on the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Each section has links to blogposts where the most important links (as I perceive it) are above, and with the lesser links below. For example, in the section on The Deity of Christ my blog "Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah" (which is nearer the top) is much more important than my blogpost "The Spirit of Jesus" (which is near the bottom of the section).
Here's my main Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
Here's a link to my blogpost where I've collected links to outside blogs where I've commented and interacted with others on the topic of the Trinity: Blog Comments on the Trinity
The Deity of Christ
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Son by John Gill
Markan Christology
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah
Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources
The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg
The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh
"Why Do You Call Me Good?" — Did Jesus Deny Being God in Mark 10:17-18
Jesus' Claim to be the Temple of God Proves His Full Deity
Jesus as God by Murray J. Harris
The Names of Jesus by Elmer L. Towns
Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
The Requirement to Love Jesus Is Evidence of Jesus' Divinity
The Tempting/Testing of Christ Is Evidence of Christ's Full Deity
The "Cup and Table of the Lord" As Evidence for Christ's Full Deity
Concerning 1 John 5:20 ( from The Trinity: Evidences and Issues)
Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity
Regarding Mark 14:62 and Daniel 7:13; Jesus Coming With the Clouds
Doxologies to Christ
The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings
Jesus the True and Proper SON of God
The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"
Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father
Jesus Lord of the Sabbath
John 20:28 And Its Proximity To John 20:30-31
God in the Midst
Lord [Jesus Christ] Willing? God's Will and Christ's Will
The Reverence for Jesus is the Fear of Jehovah
Trust in Jesus Is Apparently Trust in Jehovah
The Spirit of Jesus
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
Matthew 1:23 and "ho theos"
Concerning the Magnificent and August Names and Titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament by John Gill
Revelation 22:12-13 and the Deity of Christ
Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted
God, gods and Jesus in John 10:30-39
Is the "Oneness" of John 10:30 a "Oneness" of Purpose or Being?
Jesus' Omniscience
Does Mark 13:32 Disprove Jesus' Omniscience?
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
Brief Selective Survey of Christ's Full Deity in the Synoptics
Melchizedek Resembles the Son of God, Not the Other Way Around
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy
Does the New Testament Require Belief in the Full Deity of Jesus For the Reception of Salvation?
Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58
The Trinity or Plurality of God
The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated by John Gill
Links to John Gill's Chapters on the Trinity in His Work "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"
The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead by Dr. Michael Heiser
Old Testament Passages Implying Plurality in God
Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead
Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill
Edward Henry Bickersteth's Books In Defense of the Trinity
All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)
Omniscience of the Persons of the Trinity
The Aaronic Blessing Is Highly Suggestive of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity
Quotations from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern
The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? [The Trinity in Early Judaism]
Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity
Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
The Most Plausible Anti-Trinitarian Complaint
Speculative Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity
Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity
The Trinity and the Deity of the Messiah From a Messianic Perspective
A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity by William Lane Craig
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
The Trinity At the Beginning of Creation
Why Do Trinitarian Prooftexts Have "So Many Problems"?
Interactions with Mike Gantt
Part One: F[L]air-minded Reinvention of the Wheel
Part Two: Do Rocks Dream of Ceramic Sheep? OR Jade Runner
The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit
Of the Distinct Personality, and Deity of the Holy Spirit by John Gill
Praying to and Worshipping the Holy Spirit
The Witness of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
The Names of the Holy Spirit by Elmer L. Towns
Do the Father and Son Love the Holy Spirit?
The Trinity demonstrated from The Lord's Prayer
Some eye opening articles from the Jews for Jesus website:
Jewishness and the Trinity
The Trinity: Questions and Answers
A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective
Kabbalah's Best Kept Secret?
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
A Debate/Discussion on the Eternal Generation and Sonship of Christ
The following is a discussion/debate I had in February on Facebook in a group that debates theology. To maintain his anonymity, I'll use his initials in a scrambled order, STW. His comments will be in PURPLE, and mine in BLACK. His initial Original Post will be in blockquotes. What prompted me to finally create this blogpost near the end of April is because I finished reading (in a single day) Robert Martin's book, The Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ [freely online to read and/or download HERE]. I wasn't aware of the book's existence at the time of the debate. I corrected most of my minor typos in the debate.
STW wrote:
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ง ???
[I know this will probably trigger those with pre-commitments to traditional understandings of Christ’s ontology, but my purpose it to engage a Scriptural based discussion with those who think differently. Appeals to Tradition are not relevant to my purpose and will be ignored.]
Here's what Augustine said that actually meant:
"He understood God to be Being itself and he saw the ๐๐๐๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐’๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐. He affirmed, though, that the Persons of the Trinity were united in essence. They were all the same substance, though different Persons."
Jonathan Edwards also believed that as well. In fact that is taught in Theology 101 in Seminary.
Note: the Son of God is generated by God's own idea of Himself?
But that's not the same as a figment of God's imagination right?
If you know anything about the 1st Century Jewish philosopher Plotinus you also know that he believed the Greek ""๐๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ฌ" ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ "๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ (๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ) ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ง๐. The One being the Supreme God of Greek philosophy. Logos was an intermediary being responsible for creating the material world.
Do you see a pattern there?
There is simply no correlation between the Apostle John's "Word" (logos in Greek) and the pagan philosophical notion of Greek philosophy.
“๐๐จ ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ก ๐ฌ๐๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐; ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ง (ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท̀ฯ) ๐๐จ๐ง, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฆ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ, ๐ก๐ ๐ก๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ฆ.” John 1:18.
That word begotten or ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท̀ฯ in the Greek means - "pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class — ‘unique, only.’ Louw & Nida
That is 180 degrees opposite of the Greek notion of emanation. In fact there is no evidence that any of the Apostles subscribed to any form of Greek pagan philosophy.
Paul lent the full weight of his Apostolic authority to warn Christians away from a preoccupation with pagan philosophy.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col 2:8
We derive the Plurality of Persons in a single ontology and Christ's historical incarnation as what it means to be God from the Apostles witness.
AP: You didn't explain what specifically your views are or what you're defending.
STW: True. I first wanted to exhibit what I view as an untenable neuralgic of parity of description with neoplatonist descriptions of logos/demiurge as an emanation of The One. I solicited feedback from those who feel differently. If you are defending the notion that the Son is generated by God's own idea of himself, are you able to give a Scriptural defense for it?
AP: I'm open to various Trinitarian models. Some include the eternal filiation/generation of the Son [EG, for short] and eternal spirarion/procession of the Holy Spirit [EP]. I can take OR LEAVE those doctrines. For example Molinist William Lane Craig [as well as my favorite all around apologist, the late Calvinist Steve Hays] rejects EG and EP. But my default position which I lean toward are in affirming them.
Some reasons I lean toward affirming them:
- The second person of the Trinity is identified as the Son before His incarnation rather just being considered God's Son merely after incarnation. Prov. 30:4; Gal. 4:4; passim. See for example: Philpot's book:
The True, Proper, and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ The Only Begotten Son of God by J.C. Philpot
http://www.the-highway.com/Sonship_Contents.html
- In the scholarly community the tide is now turning back to the traditional understanding that monogenes does have connotations of begettal. See this excerpt from the second edition of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology where he changes his mind based on the evidence:
- The New Testament does seem to speak in terms of derivation either explicitly or implicitly regarding the Son and Spirit [especially if the filioque were true]. For example:
REGARDING the Son: Col. 1:15; John 5:26; 6:56; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 3:14;
REGARDING the Spirit: John 15:26; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Acts 16:7; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11
- I can also take OR leave the idea of ERAS, but I lean toward it. ERAS refers to Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission in the Trinity sans creation. More popularly discussed in the context of ESS or EFS [Eternal Subordination of the Son, or Eternal Functional Subordination]. I deny the Son and Spirit are ontologically subordinate or inferior to the Father, but the Scriptures do seem to me to teach Functional Subordination. If so, then generation and spiration best makes sense of that. See Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware's defenses of ERAS/ESS/EFS in their books, online articles and even YouTube debate. They argue for it Biblically and historically from church history starting with the early church fathers to classic Protestant theologians. And THAT despite many modern Protestants denying it. Here's a link where Grudem and Ware debate the issue with two other Trinitarian scholars:
Debating Trinitarian Submission
https://youtu.be/ySFrG3mOp5o?si=4ZhAD3NvOInR9QKp
AP: I've corrected the typos in my above comment. You may need to refresh the page to see the corrections. For example, autocorrect changed "begettal" to "Beretta." I changed it back. I also corrected other errors of grammar [etc.] which were my fault.
STW: Does look like a bit of firehosing confirmation bias when you could have simply put forward a statement of those passages that appear that Christ existed as Son before His incarnation so I will only respond to that part of your dissertation.
STW: Thinking further about your post I think your references will be a useful addition for others to consider.
I am responding to your second comment in earnest with citations from language exegetical resources that do not include arguments that contain lengthy traditional advocates.
I haven't addressed every Scripture you cited but most. Some in more detail than others. However these resources give generous language based excursus without invoking "eternal begotten".
John 1:18 “God the only Son is literally “the unique God” or “the only begotten God” (monogenฤs theos; cf. monogenous, “the one and only” in v. 14). John was probably ending his prologue by returning to the truth stated in verse 1 that the Word is God. Verse 18 is another statement affirming Christ’s deity: He is unique, the one and only God. The Son is at the Father’s side, thus revealing the intimacy of the Father and the Son (cf. the Word was “with God,” vv. 1–2). Furthermore, the Son has made … known (exฤgฤsato, whence the Eng. “exegeted”) the Father. The Son is the “exegete” of the Father, and as a result of His work the nature of the invisible Father (cf. 4:24) is displayed in the Son (cf. 6:46).”
Blum, E. A. (1985). John. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 273). Victor Books.
18. ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฮฮตฯฯ (ืBC1L) for แฝ ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฯ แผฑแฝธฯ (AX, the secondary uncials, and all cursives except 33). Thus no ancient Greek authority supports แฝ ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฯ แผฑฮฟฯ, while ฮผฮฟฮฝ. ฮฮตฯฯ is supported by three great types, B, ื, CL. The earliest authorities for แฝ ฮผ.
Plummer, A. (1896). The Gospel according to S. John (p. 61). Cambridge University Press.
Pro 30:4
The question, What is His name? asks what His true character is like. The inquiry, What is the name of His son? suggests the question, “Has He imparted His nature or attributes to any other who may in any sense be called His ‘Son’?” (T. T. Perowne, The Proverbs, p. 180) Tell me if you know reflects Agur’s desire to know the nature of God.
Buzzell, S. S. (1985). Proverbs. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 969). Victor Books.
What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!: Two further rhetorical questions follow the Who? questions. To know a person’s name was the key to knowing the person. It was the proof that the person, whether human or divine, was a real person; see, for example, Gen 32:29 and Exo 3:13. The demand for names puts further emphasis on the point of the four Who? questions, since the speaker expects the answer “no one” to those questions. Surely you know is a sarcastic way of saying, “you don’t know anybody who can do those things.” The word translated Surely may also mean “if”; so niv, for example, renders these words as “Tell me if you know!” tev takes these words with the first of the questions: “Who are they, if you know?” This last part of the verse can be translated as a statement or request, rather than as a question; one translation, for example, says: “If you know a person who can do all this, tell me his name with the names of his children, so that I can know.”
Reyburn, W. D., & Fry, E. M. (2000). A handbook on Proverbs (p. 623). United Bible Societies.
J. I. Packer draws no inferences to Christ here.
“…only God can establish the ends of the earth (Job 38:4–6). The question What is his [and his son’s] name? may make us think of God the Father and Jesus, but that is probably not in the mind of Agur. Rather, it is simply a way of asking the identity of the one who has done all that verse 4 has outlined. In Job 38 similar challenge questions were designed to reorient Job and move him in a new direction. Here Agur is recounting these challenges to explain why he has moved on from his former lack of wisdom (vv. 2–3) to a firm foundation for wisdom and knowledge in God and his words"
Wilson, L. (2017). Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (D. G. Firth, Ed.; Vol. 17, p. 307). Inter-Varsity Press.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Oblique reference to the Son, the time of his becoming Son not specified.
Colossians 1:15 Indeterminate of when “the Son” was sent.
the firstborn of every creature] Better perhaps, Firstborn of all creation (Lightfoot and R.V.), or, with a very slight paraphrase, Firstborn over all creation; standing to it in the relation of priority of existence and supremacy of inherited right. So, to borrow a most inadequate analogy, the heir of an hereditary throne might be described as “firstborn to, or over, all the realm.” The word “creature” (from the (late) Latin creatura) here probably, as certainly in Rom. 8, means “creation” as a whole; a meaning to which the Greek word inclines in usage, rather than to that of “a creature” (which latter Ellicott and Alford however adopt). See Lightfoot’s note.
Moule, H. C. G. (1898). The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon with Introduction and Notes (p. 77). Cambridge University Press.
“Some commentators regard 15–17 as descriptive of the Word before the Incarnation, the ฮฯฮณฮฟฯ แผฯฮฑฯฮบฮฟฯ; and 18–20, of the Incarnate Word, ฮฯฮณฮฟฯ แผฮฝฯฮฑฯฮบฮฟฯ. But this is inconsistent with แผฯฯฮนฮฝ, “is,” which shows that St. Paul is speaking of Christ in His present glorified state. Compare 2 Cor. 4:4, ฯแฝธฮฝ ฯฯฯฮนฯฮผแฝธฮฝ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮตแฝฮฑฮณฮณฮตฮปฮฏฮฟฯ ฯแฟฯ ฮดฯฮพฮทฯ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮงฯฮนฯฯฮฟแฟฆ, แฝ ฯ แผฯฯฮนฮฝ ฮตแผฐฮบแฝผฮฝ ฯฮฟแฟฆ ฮฮตฮฟแฟฆ. The exalted Christ is now and continues to be what He was in His own nature as the Word before He became incarnate, John 17:5”
Abbott, T. K. (1909). A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (pp. 209–210). C. Scribner’s sons.
“In this section, Paul explained the fourfold relationship of Jesus Christ to Creation.
He existed before Creation (v. 15). The term firstborn does not refer to time, but to place or status. Jesus Christ was not the first being created, since He Himself is the Creator of all things. Firstborn simply means “of first importance, of first rank.” Solomon was certainly not born first of all of David’s sons, yet he was named the firstborn (Ps. 89:27). Firstborn of all Creation means “prior to all Creation.” Jesus Christ is not a created being; He is eternal God.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 2, pp. 115–116). Victor Books.
John 5:26; 6:56
“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.”
This is in the Son of man context and therefore a reference after incarnation.
John 6:56
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Indeterminate but fits clearly in the frame of incarnational reference.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten (ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ) into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
Already shown that ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ does not mean begotten and is a reference to Christ’s first place in every category of reference.
AP: PART 1. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that every passage I cited proves my point. They are at the very least suggestive. My point was that there's a general and reoccurring theme or motif of derivation, or Sonship, or submission in the Scriptures that would best be explained by something like the concepts of eternal generation & procession of the Son and Spirit. As I said, I'm not wedded to the doctrines. I can take OR LEAVE them. Also there are numerous book[s] that defend the pre-incarnate Sonship of Christ from Scripture. I didn't really defend those passages because they have been defended numerous times by many proponents of EG. And if EG is true, then that opens the door to EP.
Above I already linked to Philpot's freely online book. Here's a work by famous theologian and bible commentator John Gill that's also freely online:
A Dissertation Concerning the Eternal Sonship of Christ
Interestingly you mentioned a few authors who argue for an interpretation of a specific passage who themselves do or likely do affirm EG and EP. For example, the late J.I. Packer probably believed in EG/EP. I'm not aware of Packer denying it, and as a good Anglican, Packer would have accepted the Nicene Creed [i.e. the revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan version] as well as the Athanasian Creed which teach EG/EP.
You mentioned Dispensationalist John Walvoord and Roy Zuck who also likely taught EG/EP. George W. Zeller I believe is a Dispensationalist who runs in their circles, and Zeller wrote the book "The Eternal Sonship of Christ." Renald Showers is either a co-author or wrote the preface or introduction to the book. I know FOR SURE Renald Showers is an ARDENT defender of Dispensationalism and is often mentioned with the likes of Walvoord and Zuck. I read Zeller's book when I was still a Dispensationalist myself around 25 years ago. I'm no longer a Dispensationalist.
//I am responding to your second comment in earnest with citations from language exegetical resources that do not include arguments that contain lengthy traditional advocates. //
In other words you don't interact with the accumulating recent evidence that has some scholars concluding that the word "monogenes" does have connotations of begettal etymologically by its and related words use in other literature surrounding the time of the first century.
//I haven't addressed every Scripture you cited but most. //
I don't expect you to. Because I gave reasons why I MYSELF lean toward EG & EP. Of course, by not addressing them all, you can pick and choose the least troublesome passages for your position to address and leave out the most problematic ones.
// Furthermore, the Son has made … known (exฤgฤsato, whence the Eng. “exegeted”) the Father. The Son is the “exegete” of the Father, and as a result of His work the nature of the invisible Father (cf. 4:24) is displayed in the Son (cf. 6:46).”//
Agreed.
Regarding Prov. 30:4, I grant that it's cryptic and uncertain. But it is suggestive.
See these commentaries on the verse and its suggestive nature:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/30-4.htm
//“…only God can establish the ends of the earth (Job 38:4–6). The question What is his [and his son’s] name? may make us think of God the Father and Jesus, but that is probably not in the mind of Agur.//
That's possible. But even if it wasn't in Agur’s mind as per the Sensus Literalis whereby we discern the human authorial intent of the passage using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, we must also consider the Sensus Plenior which is God's deeper intended meaning of the passage which can go beyond the human author's knowledge and intent. A meaning that takes into account all of the canon of Scripture past, present and [yet to be written] future.
So even if some of the interpretations you gave of Prov 30:4 are true AS FAR AS THEY GO, there can be the deeper meaning. In which case the passage might be saying something like: "What is His name [i.e. nature and character of this ineffable being], and what is His Son's name [i.e. nature and character of this person who is ALSO SO TRANSCENDENT as to be ineffable]?" The implied meaning being that just as you cannot exhaustively comprehend the name/nature/attributes of God, so neither can you that of His equally divine Son. And I didn't even mention Proverbs 8:22ff. which has classically been used by BOTH Trinitarians and Arians/Semi-Arians to refer to the derivation of the Son ante-incarnationally.
CONT. BELOW
AP: PART 2. //Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Oblique reference to the Son, the time of his becoming Son not specified. //
According to some who know Koine, the grammar implies Sonship before being sent [i.e. incarnated].
Regarding Col. 1:15, I've believed for decades your interpretation. Firstborn doesn't mean first created. But rather all that you wrote and more. I cited it with respect to Christ being the "IMAGE" of God and therefore gives the connotation of derivation.
Regarding John 5:26; 6:57 I agree that it could merely be referring to post-incarnational conditions. But historically many theologians in the past have interpreted it to allude to the intra-Trinitarian dependence of the Son on the Father not merely in the economic Trinity [given creation and redemption] but also the immanent/ontological Trinity [sans creation & redemption].
//This is in the Son of man context and therefore a reference after incarnation. //
In Hebrew the phrase "son of man" meant merely "human being." It's used of Ezekiel repeatedly. But it took on a new meaning due to Dan. 7:13ff. Where this "Son of Man" is man-like in one sense given the phrase itself, but was at the same time divine-like given that He rides the clouds [a prerogative only of deities in the Semitic Ancient Near East]. So, just because the phrase is used in John 5:27, v. 26 isn't necessarily and obviously limited to the incarnation. Though it well might. DID NOT JESUS HAVE "LIFE IN HIMSELF" PRIOR TO THE INCARNATION as the 2nd person of the Trinity? Then why would He need to be given it at the incarnation? So, a [more?] plausible interpretation is that He was given this life by the Father sans creation from all eternity outside of time. Again, cf. Prov. 8:22ff.
//Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten (ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ) into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
Already shown that ฯฯฯฯฮฟ́ฯฮฟฮบฮฟฮฝ does not mean begotten and is a reference to Christ’s first place in every category of reference.//
I didn't mention Heb. 1:6, but Heb. 1:3 for the purpose of citing another passage suggesting derivation when it refers to the Son being "the RADIANCE of His Glory." Which has connotations with God's Shekinah glory. Some of the church fathers used the analogy of a hypothetical sun that has always existed and so has always been emanating glory, light and heat.
Another indication of derivation is Jesus being the eternal WORD of God who was with God [the Father] in the beginning [John 1:1]. Words are derivative. There is a speaker who speaks words that EMANATE FROM the speaker. Scripture uses that non-literal imagery of speaker/words of the Father and Son for a reason. To convey derivation. Admittedly, the word "logos" [meaning reason/word] already had a meaning in Platonic thought and was even co-opted by Philo the Jew. Whether the author of John was also alluding to that tradition isn't clear. But he was almost certainly alluding to the very popular Aramaic Targums that ante-date the New Testament which personified God's word [memra in Aramaic, debar in Hebrew] as if a person distinct from God. See this very interesting article that collects excerpts from the Targums:
Word of the Lord in the Targums
Http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
This was done probably because of passages in the Old Testament where the word of God is also likened as a person sent from God. As the "word of Yahweh came to Abram in a *VISION*" (Gen. 15:1) and as Yahweh **STOOD** before the boy Samuel [1 Sam. 3:10], it was probably the Word of Yahweh standing [as mentioned earlier and later in the chapter].
And Yahweh APPEARED again at Shiloh, for Yahweh REVEALED himself to Samuel at Shiloh **BY THE WORD** of Yahweh.
— 1 Samuel 3:21
Examples could be multiplied. In a related way, Jesus is probably the Angel/Messenger of the LORD/Yahweh. Being sent suggests submission, and intra-Trinitarian submission is best explained by derivation if it's sans creation [i.e. ERAS].
STW: Citing dispensational connections from authors I've cited is diversionary and looks triggered.
The "derived" passages are equally operative as functioning post incarnation if not more so as Christ said that he came to bear witness to the truth. Since they work equally well in either position then they prove neither.
You may believe in "eternal generation" or give a qualified statement about it but it is clear that you are advocating for it or conversely trying to deconstruct my position that there is no clear grounding from Apostolic teaching that entails "eternal generation" accompanied by the specificity that would convey such concepts to a 1st Century audience.
You haven't achieved an actionable argument, external citations notwithstanding.
Thanks for interacting but there is nothing further to respond to.
AP: I cited the Dispensational connections because Zeller, who wrote a defense of the eternal sonship of Christ, is likely a Dispensationalist too since his co-author of the book is well known for being an ardent defender of Dispensationalism on par with Walvoord and Zuck. The point being some of the authors you cited to undermine derivation in a particular passage, probably believe in EG/EP themselves.
You say the derived passages are equally operative for pre or post incarnational conditions. That's patently false. I gave examples that ante-date the incarnation. Jesus as the Word ante-dates the incarnation. And "word" connotes derivation and emanation. Words emanate from speakers. Proverbs 8:22 describes something that ante-dates the incarnation. I asked whether Jesus had "life in himself" prior to the incarnation, and if so, why would He need to be given it at the incarnation. Suggesting that therefore as plausible, if not more plausible this giving by the Father predates the incarnation. I pointed how "radiance" in Heb. 1:3 connotes emanation associated with Old Testament concept of the presence of God.
Also, I pointed out that your references to the meaning of monogenes is challenged by the most recent discoveries. Discoveries so weighty that Wayne Grudem, one of the top leaders of the translation of the best selling and respected ESV Bible, is going to recommend changing the ESV to reflect those discoveries so as to return to the traditional translation of "only begotten."
STW: As I said, you haven't given a preponderance of evidence that clear defines "generation." There's no challenge in positive associations of those who you think may assert your view. It is well know that many language scholars are so consistent in their field that their commitment to accuracy out weighed their theological commitments. Joseph Thayer for instance was a universalist and towards the end of his life stated that he believed the Bible has errors, however his work is widely for its accuracy.
That there is not uniformity of agreement on the meaning of monogenes is not proof for your view. So all you are doing is serving up a bevy of "could be's" of reasons for you view. That's not the same as demonstration according to the preponderance of evidence.
To a first century audience, especially in the Jewish mindset having a one and only son, harkens back to Israel's own status as God's firstborn has a much different meaning than the neoplatonist abstraction of eternal generation. Monogenes is clearly in the same semantic domain as it is translated "only son" or "daughter" (Lk 7:12, 8:42, 9:38) as it is in Heb 11:17:
"Abraham offered up his only begotten (ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฟฮณฮตฮฝฮท͂) [son]"
Repeated usage in the NT to refer to human offspring demonstrates consistency of its meaning in the ordinary sense.
AP: I could choose to argue my case further, but it was really only my purpose in my original post to give reasons why I and others [at the very least if not more] lean toward EG. In order to give other people places to start to explore the reasons why EG & EP make some sense. But I'm not really interested in making a greater argument. It's enough that I've given some pointers for those interested to pursue further.
I'll just leave this excerpt from the link I gave which took from Grudem's 2nd edition Systematic Theology.
//“But then, in 2017, substantial new evidence came to light. Charles Lee Irons published a significant essay, ‘A Lexical Defense of the Johannine “Only Begotten.”’ Irons reported that he had found many hundreds of examples of monogenes in the early church fathers who wrote in Greek. He then pointed to B. F. Westcott’s 1886 commentary on the epistles of John as the earliest support for the meaning ‘unique’ rather than ‘only begotten.’ Westcott was followed by other publications, and eventually the meaning ‘only’ appeared in these five verses in the RSV in 1946, and other Bible translations followed.
“In response to the ‘only, unique’ view, Irons argues that the difference between single and double n in genos and gennao has no significance since both words ultimately share the same root and the doubling of n is a common spelling variation in Greek.
“Significantly, Irons found ‘at least 145’ words in ancient Greek that are built upon the –genes stem. By far the largest number of them have the idea of being born or produced. These include thalassogenes (“sea-born”), neogenes (“newborn”), patrogenes (“begotten of the father”), proteregenes (“born sooner, older”), and purigenes (“born in or from fire”). He says, ‘Fewer than 12 of the 145 –genes words involve meanings related to “kind”.’
“Irons does not claim that monogenes always means ‘only begotten,’ because there are numerous clear examples where it does mean simply ‘only, unique, one-of-a-kind.’ But Irons is claiming that many hundreds of examples prove that it certainly can mean ‘only begotten,’ and that ‘monogenes is used more basically and frequently in reference to an only child begotten by a parent, with the implication of not having siblings.’
“He adds another argument:
If the word meant ‘only,’ then we would expect to find it used to modify many other nouns that do not involve the concept of begotten or being an offspring, for example, ‘only wife,’ ‘only brother,’ only friend,’ ‘only slave’…‘only garment,’ ‘only house,’ ‘only sword,’ and so on. But such collocations are completely absent in extrabiblical Greek. This suggests that the literal meaning…is the straightforward biological meaning: ‘only begotten,’ that is, ‘without siblings.’
“Irons then explains that ‘this basic meaning gets gradually extended in ever new non-literal, metaphorical directions,’ including the meaning ‘only legitimate child or heir’ (applied to Isaac in Heb. 11:17) and eventually the meaning ‘only one of its kind.’
“Finally, Irons considers the meaning of monogenes in the New Testament. John 1:14 is especially significant: ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:14). The problem is that the word son (Gk. huios) is not in the Greek text, which just says doxan hos monogenes para patros. If we translate monogenes as ‘only,’ we end up with the nonsense phrase, ‘glory as of the only from the Father.’ When Bible translations such as the ESV and NIV have to insert the word ‘Son,’ Irons says, they show that monogenes cannot mean simply ‘only’ in this case but that the notion of being a child or being begotten was part of the meaning signified by the word monogenes itself. By contrast, the translation ‘glory of the only begotten of the Father’ is a coherent idea.
“In addition, the view that Christ was eternally begotten by the Father is explicitly affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which has been widely used by Christians since it was first written in AD 325 (and revised in AD 381). It begins this way:
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten [Gr. monogenes] Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made.
“Clearly, the authors of the Nicene Creed understood monogenes to mean ‘only begotten,’ not just ‘only, unique,’ because they use the verb gennao (‘beget’) twice to explain what monogenes means: (1) it is an eternal begetting that never had a beginning because Christ was ‘begotten (gennethenta) of the Father before all ages,’ and (2) it does not mean that the Son was created, for the Son was ‘begotten, not made (gennethenta, ou poiethenta).
“The evidence and arguments produced by Irons have convinced me that monogenes when used of God the Son in the New Testament means ‘only begotten.’ As a result, I have removed appendix 6 (where I argued against ‘only begotten’) from this edition of Systematic Theology. In addition, I am now willing to affirm the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (also called the eternal begetting of the Son)...//
AP: For those interested, here's a link to one of my blogs where I linked to many other online articles arguing for monogenes having the meaning of "only begotten":
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-case-for-monogenes-meaning-only.html?m=1
STW: I have no problem with you giving reasons why you “lean” towards EG.
However, knowing the deep penchant of those who hold traditional understandings of God to go to extreme lengths to argue for the perpetuation of those views without adding substantially to their persuasiveness I imagine others can decide for themselves.
None of the contributors here have been able to put forward lexical or grammatical arguments that would be viewed anymore compelling to first century readers who lived up stream of post-apostolic syncretizers.
AP: More evidence of a Biblical Motif or Theme of something like emanation or generation
## Micah 5:2 LSB
[2] “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will GO FORTH for Me to be ruler in Israel. HIS **GOINGS FORTH** ARE FROM EVERLASTING, From the ancient days.”
Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of Christ and it talks about TWO kinds of His "going forth." One corresponds to temporal and incarnational Sonship of the Davidic king who were called "sons" of God like David was. He would be "ruler of Israel" as the text says. The second "goings forth" ante-dates the incarnation and is from everlasting. Notice the first "going forth" is in the context of GENERATION from the clans of Judah. So it stands to reason, or at least it's plausible that the second "going forth" is also generational/begettal given Jewish penchant for Hebrew parallelism.
When read in light of Micah 5:2, Jesus' repeated statements of being SENT by the Father or COMING FORTH from the Father more naturally connotes generation. Especially since it's from the FATHER. For example:
John 16:27-28 LSB
[27] for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER. [28] I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND HAVE COME INTO THE WORLD; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
[[ This is a comment after the debate. If the FATHER sent prior to the incarnation, then it stands to reason the Father was a FATHER before the incarnation. In which case the Son was a SON before the incarnation as well.]]
Notice how verse 28 strongly suggests His coming from the Father is sans or before incarnation [cf. 8:42].
This makes my preferred interpretation of Gal. 4:4 more plausible. That God sent forth His Son before the Incarnation.
## Daniel 2:34 LSB
[34] You continued looking until A STONE WAS CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
God is often called the Rock in the Old Testament. Here, Christ [and His Kingdom He heads and represents] is likened to a stone cut out of a bigger stone "without hands" [i.e. something divine and miraculous is being described here]. The verse connotes something like generation or emanation or *derivation* in that the stone sent into the world to destroy the pagan kingdoms was DERIVED from the original stone.
## Arm of the LORD/Yahweh [Isa. 51:9; 53:1; 40:10; 51:5; 52:10; 62:8; 63:5 John 12:38]
Isaiah 51:9 LSB
[9] ¶Awake, awake, put on strength, O ***ARM*** of Yahweh; Awake as in the DAYS OF OLD, the generations OF LONG AGO. Was it not You who chopped Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Christ is prophetically called the "Arm of the LORD/Yahweh" as if He were an *EXTENSION* of the Father. This is in keeping with the generation or emanation motif. God ***STRETCHES** out His HAND [Isa. 5:25; 14:27; 23:11; 31:3; Jer. 6:12; 15:6; 51:25 passim]
AFAIR [As Far As I Know], You didn't address Heb. 1:3 which speaks of Christ as the "radiance" or apaugasma. Which a lexicon defines as "of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence."
Nor addressed Christ as the Word of God before incarnation. Genesis 3:8 can be translated as "... they heard the VOICE of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." Which is the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of God. Nor addressed the likely Johannine allusion to the Targumim:
http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Nor addressed Prov. 8:22-23.
“Yahweh POSSESSED me at the beginning of His way,
Before His deeds of old.
From everlasting I WAS INSTALLED,
FROM THE BEGINNING, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths ***I WAS BROUGHT FORTH***,
When there were no springs heavy with water.
— Proverbs 8:22-24
[[At this point STW stopped contributing to the discussion. I suspect because he was overwhelmed by the evidences and arguments I posted. But I posted again to press him on answering my arguments.]]
AP: Don't you think some of the passages I mentioned above meet the criteria of generation? Especially Micah 5:2? I'm posting the comment again below:
## Micah 5:2 LSB
[2] “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will GO FORTH for Me to be ruler in Israel. HIS **GOINGS FORTH** ARE FROM EVERLASTING, From the ancient days.”
Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of Christ and it talks about TWO kinds of His "going forth." One corresponds to temporal and incarnational Sonship of the Davidic king who were called "sons" of God like David was. He would be "ruler of Israel" as the text says. The second "goings forth" ante-dates the incarnation and is from everlasting. Notice the first "going forth" is in the context of GENERATION from the clans of Judah. So it stands to reason, or at least it's plausible that the second "going forth" is also generational/begettal given Jewish penchant for Hebrew parallelism.
When read in light of Micah 5:2, Jesus' repeated statements of being SENT by the Father or COMING FORTH from the Father more naturally connotes generation. Especially since it's from the FATHER. For example:
John 16:27-28 LSB
[27] for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER. [28] I CAME FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND HAVE COME INTO THE WORLD; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
Notice how verse 28 strongly suggests His coming from the Father is sans or before incarnation [cf. 8:42].
This makes my preferred interpretation of Gal. 4:4 more plausible. That God sent forth His Son before the Incarnation.
## Daniel 2:34 LSB
[34] You continued looking until A STONE WAS CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
God is often called the Rock in the Old Testament. Here, Christ [and His Kingdom He heads and represents] is likened to a stone cut out of a bigger stone "without hands" [i.e. something divine and miraculous is being described here]. The verse connotes something like generation or emanation or *derivation* in that the stone sent into the world to destroy the pagan kingdoms was DERIVED from the original stone.
## Arm of the LORD/Yahweh [Isa. 51:9; 53:1; 40:10; 51:5; 52:10; 62:8; 63:5 John 12:38]
Isaiah 51:9 LSB
[9] ¶Awake, awake, put on strength, O ***ARM*** of Yahweh; Awake as in the DAYS OF OLD, the generations OF LONG AGO. Was it not You who chopped Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Christ is prophetically called the "Arm of the LORD/Yahweh" as if He were an *EXTENSION* of the Father. This is in keeping with the generation or emanation motif. God ***STRETCHES** out His HAND [Isa. 5:25; 14:27; 23:11; 31:3; Jer. 6:12; 15:6; 51:25 passim]
AFAIR, You didn't address Heb. 1:3 which speaks of Christ as the "radiance" or apaugasma. Which a lexicon defines as "of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence."
Nor addressed Christ as the Word of God before incarnation. Genesis 3:8 can be translated as "... they heard the VOICE of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." Which is the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of God. Nor addressed the likely Johannine allusion to the Targumim:
http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Nor addressed Prov. 8:22-23.
“Yahweh POSSESSED me at the beginning of His way,
Before His deeds of old.
From everlasting I WAS INSTALLED,
FROM THE BEGINNING, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths ***I WAS BROUGHT FORTH***,
When there were no springs heavy with water.
— Proverbs 8:22-24
The Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ by Robert Martin
An older work in defense of the eternal Sonship of Christ.
The Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ by Robert Martin
The full title is The Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ Considered, Illustrated, and Defended, and Fully Proved to be Truth Revealed in the Holy Scriptures; Including Also, A Respectful Answer to All the Objections and Arguments Which Have Been Urged by the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke Against Such a Filiation. I love these long elaborate titles of older works.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
The Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies Are Closer Than Is Usually Recognized
The Synoptic Christologies might actually have a Jesus claiming to be divine to the same [or near same] degree as GJohn. The reason why we often think Jesus' statements about His divinity are very much higher in GJohn than in the Synoptics is because we often read them in light of the pre-interpretation given by the author who says in the very beginning of his gospel that Jesus was "God" (John 1:1-3). But if you actually read Jesus' statements on their own [not letting the introduction flavor or taint them], while they do clearly have Him *claiming* He is Divine, they don't actually have Him *saying* or *stating* [at least explicitly] that He is Divine. The author of the GJohn expects his *readers* to understand Jesus' statements to be claims to Deity [given his introduction of Jesus being God], but the author also expects readers to understand that the original audience of Jesus couldn't always tell whether Jesus was or wasn't claiming to be Divine. Often in GJohn Jesus uses language which could be interpreted either way. Either interpreted in a way that is a claim to Deity, and in another way that could be interpreted as not being a claim to Deity. This is why His hearers sometimes didn't know how to react to Him. Or were frustrated by His wording and (apparent intentional) ambiguity. Not just on His Deity, but His messiahship and other topics (e.g. John 10:24; 11:12-14; 16:25-29). For example, Jesus says in John 8:24 "Unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you will die in your sins." That could be interpreted by the original audience to be a claim to deity. Or just a claim to being the messiah, when He says "I am [he the messiah]." It's only at John 8:58 that His hearers have enough data and confidence that Jesus was probably claiming deity that they felt justified in taking up stones to stone Him to death. Even though, Jesus' statement, per se, could still be interpreted in a way that's not claiming Deity. For proof, see the arguments Unitarians (who reject the full Deity of Jesus) use to argue that the correct interpretation is one of no claim to Deity on Jesus' part. However, while Jesus' statement even there could be construed by His original audience in a way that doesn't have Him necessarily claiming Divine status, I think it's clear that the author of GJohn would have his *readers* understand it actually IS a claim of Deity. The same could be said of many other places in John (e.g. John 13:19; 18:5-6, passim). When one sees GJohn in this way, and combines it with an understanding of how much higher the Christologies of Jesus are in the Synoptics as is usually recognized [see my blogpost Markan Christology], the seeming alleged discrepancy [or difference, or disparity or their being disparate in nature] in the Johannine Christology and the Synoptic Christologies is greatly diminished or eliminated.
See also my blogpost:
Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
Saturday, January 3, 2026
Can the Son and Spirit Be "Self-Existent" Given the Doctrines of Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession?
I asked the following question of ChatGPT:
ChatGPT answered in a way that I myself independently concluded years ago, and which I've seen other theologians have argued [for example John Edwards HERE]:
ChatGPT's Answer:
Yes—within classical Trinitarian theology there is a well-developed way to affirm EG and EP while still affirming both the Son’s and the Spirit’s necessary existence, and even (in a qualified sense) their self-existence. The key is careful distinctions.
1. Necessary existence (NE) is straightforwardly affirmed
All orthodox Trinitarian positions affirm that:
-
The one divine essence exists necessarily
-
The Father, Son, and Spirit each fully possess that same essence
Therefore:
-
The Son and Spirit exist necessarily, not contingently
-
Their existence is not caused in time, nor dependent on creation or divine will
So EG and EP do not threaten NE at all.
2. The real tension concerns self-existence (aseity)
The issue is how to understand aseity (SE).
Traditionally:
-
Aseity properly belongs to the divine essence
-
The essence exists a se (from itself)
-
The persons are distinguished only by relations of origin
This leads to the classical claim:
The Father is unbegotten;
the Son is eternally begotten;
the Spirit eternally proceeds.
So the question becomes:
Does eternal derivation exclude self-existence?
3. Classical solution: distinguish essence from personal relations
Core distinction
-
As God (according to essence):
-
The Son and Spirit are self-existent
-
-
As persons (according to relation of origin):
-
The Son is from the Father
-
The Spirit is from the Father (and the Son, in the West)
-
This allows the following formulation:
The Son is autotheos with respect to essence,
but not autotheos with respect to personal origin.
This view is found (with different emphases) in:
-
Athanasius
-
The Cappadocians
-
Augustine
-
Aquinas
-
Calvin (explicitly uses autotheos language)
So:
-
No person causes the divine essence
-
But the Father communicates the one divine essence to the Son and Spirit eternally
No temporal priority, no inequality, no contingency.
4. Why eternal generation does not deny true divinity
Eternal generation is:
-
Necessary, not free
-
Internal to God
-
Ontological, not efficient-causal in a creaturely sense
So the Son is not:
-
Dependent like a creature
-
Less divine
-
Derivative in being God
Rather:
-
The Son’s mode of being God is from the Father
-
The Father’s mode of being God is unbegotten
The dependence is relational, not essential.
5. Two orthodox ways of stating the position
Option A: Classical (most common)
-
Aseity belongs strictly to the divine essence
-
Persons possess aseity by identity with the essence
-
Personal relations do not introduce ontological dependence
Option B: Qualified autotheos of the Son
-
The Son is self-existent as God
-
But not self-originating as Son
-
This preserves both EG/EP and strong divine equality
Both positions are orthodox; they differ in how strongly aseity is predicated of persons rather than essence.
6. What would actually be denied by EG/EP
EG and EP deny:
-
That the Son and Spirit are unoriginated persons
-
That they are independent centers of deity
They do not deny:
-
Necessary existence
-
Full divinity
-
Co-equality
-
Co-eternity
-
Possession of aseity as God
Bottom line
Yes—you can affirm NE and (properly understood) SE while affirming EG and EP, if you:
-
Ground aseity in the divine essence
-
Understand generation and procession as eternal relations, not causal dependence
-
Distinguish what is true of God essentially from what is true of persons relationally
If you want, I can:
-
Compare this with social Trinitarian models
-
Explain why some modern theologians reject EG/EP
-
Map how this plays out in Nicene vs post-Nicene theology
I asked ChatGPT to compare its answer to a question I asked it a while back based on my blogpost HERE. I noted that the answer was similar.
ChatGPT's answer:
Yes—your recollection is right, and you’re also right to notice that this lines up very closely with the answer I just gave, because John Edwards is effectively pushing one of the strongest possible versions of the “autotheos-with-qualification” position.
What’s helpful now is to be very clear about where Edwards is orthodox, where he is innovative, and where tensions remain.
I’ll proceed in four steps:
-
What Edwards is doing philosophically
-
Why his argument is coherent (not nonsense)
-
Where it presses against classical patristic language
-
How this fits with EG/EP without contradiction
1. What Edwards is actually doing
Edwards is making a strict essence-based argument:
If the Son and Father share the same numerical divine essence,
and if self-existence (aseity) belongs essentially to that essence,
then the Son must be self-existent in the same sense as the Father.
This is not a casual claim. It rests on three deep commitments:
-
Numerical identity of essence (not merely generic sameness)
-
Aseity as an essential property of deity
-
Perichoresis as metaphysically real, not just rhetorical
In other words, Edwards is reasoning inside Nicene metaphysics, not outside it.
2. Why Edwards’ argument is coherent (not contradictory)
(a) The key move: denying a creaturely inference
The crucial objection is:
“He who exists from another does not exist from himself.”
Edwards’ response is subtle but valid given eternalism:
-
That inference is true only for temporal, finite beings
-
It relies on priority, dependency, and external causation
-
None of those apply in eternal generation
So Edwards is right to say:
-
You cannot import creaturely causation logic into eternal divine relations
-
Doing so collapses the Creator–creature distinction
This is a standard move in classical theism (you see versions of it in Aquinas, Gregory of Nyssa, and later Reformed scholastics).
(b) John 5:26 and “given life”
Edwards’ reading here is actually quite strong:
-
“Life in himself” = essential, underived divine life
-
“Given” = eternal communication of essence, not acquisition
So:
-
The Son does not receive aseity as a property he lacked
-
Rather, the Father eternally communicates the self-existent essence
-
Which remains self-existent wherever it subsists
This avoids contradiction because:
-
The property is not caused
-
Only the personal mode of subsistence is relational
That distinction is crucial.
3. Where Edwards goes beyond many Fathers
You’re also right that many Church Fathers denied aseity of the Son in a personal sense.
Typical patristic formula:
-
Father: unbegotten, a se
-
Son: begotten, from the Father
-
Spirit: proceeding
What Edwards does differently:
-
He refuses to restrict aseity only to the Father
-
He insists that aseity belongs to the essence as such
-
And since the Son is identical with that essence, aseity cannot be absent
This is not heretical, but it does shift emphasis:
-
Fathers often spoke person-first
-
Edwards speaks essence-first
That difference explains the tension, without implying contradiction.
4. Does this still affirm Eternal Generation and Procession?
Yes—but with a precise understanding.
Edwards affirms:
-
The Son is eternally from the Father as Son
-
The Father is the personal principle (arche) without denying equality
-
Generation is necessary, eternal, internal
But he denies:
-
That “from the Father” means ontological dependence
-
That it implies lack of aseity
-
That it introduces priority or derivation of being
So the structure looks like this:
| Aspect | Essence | Person |
|---|---|---|
| Existence | A se | Relationally from |
| Necessity | Absolute | Absolute |
| Origin | None | Father → Son / Spirit |
| Divinity | Identical | Identical |
Thus:
The Son is from the Father personally,
from himself essentially,
and from neither temporally.
No contradiction arises unless one equivocates between:
-
essential existence
-
personal origin
5. Final evaluation
Your earlier question, my earlier answer, and your present formulation are all converging on the same point:
Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession do not logically require denying the Son’s or Spirit’s aseity—only denying that they are unoriginated persons.
John Edwards’ position is:
-
Metaphysically coherent
-
Textually motivated
-
Within the bounds of Nicene orthodoxy
-
But not the dominant patristic idiom
That’s why it feels both compelling and controversial.
If you want, next we could:
-
Compare Edwards to Calvin’s autotheos doctrine
-
Contrast this with Thomistic accounts of aseity
-
Or analyze whether Edwards’ view subtly shifts the monarchia of the Father
Just tell me where you want to go next.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)