Can The Son of God Be Both Eternally Generated By the Father And Also Self-Existent?

 
I'm reading Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by  John Edwards (1637-1716) [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)]. At about 68% of the way through [started around page 33 in some editions] I came across an interesting argument for Jesus' Self-Existence despite being Eternally Generated by the Father.

Some Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards

A Supplement to the Animadversions on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity by John Edwards

So, I asked ChatGPT the following.

Given the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, Christian theologian John Edwards [not to be confused with Jonathan Edwards] argued contrary to many church fathers that the Son could still be not only necessarily existent (as many of the fathers taught) but also self-existent like the Father (as many church fathers denied). Edwards argued in the following fashion. Tell me if you think if it makes any sense, or if it's nonsense or contradictory.

Edwards argued in the following way (paraphrased): Theologian John Edwards argued in the following manner given John 5:26. Where we see that what is said of the Father, is said of the Son, that is that they have both of them life in themselves: And without doubt the Son hath life in himself in the same sense and propriety that the Father hath life in himself. The essence and life of the Father are self-existent; therefore the essence and life of the Son are so too. The antecedent is evident. The consequence is as evident, for the life and essence of the Son and of the Father are the same, or they are not: If they be not the same, then the Father and the Son have different essences, and consequently are different Gods; Or if the essence be the same, it must be a self-existent essence and life, unless it can be proved, that self-existent essence and life, and non self-existent essence and life are the same. Meaning a contradiction.

But it will be objected, that in the text before mentioned it is said that this self-life is given. When the Son said "as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself" he plainly declares the absolute likeness of the Son to the Father, for the Son has life, just as the Father has life, namely, a natural and essential life of his own. This signifies the natural and essential procession from him. This giving does not imply that the Son had not that in himself which is said to be given by the Father. Though self-existence be given to the Son by the Father, yet it is a proper self-existence. It is no more a contradiction than the Father raising the Son from the dead, and the Son raising himself from the dead.

If it is the essential property of the Father to exist of himself, then the Son must have a self-existence, otherwise he has not the same essence with the Father. The Son is of himself, because he is of the Father whose essence is his, and that essence is self-existent. This is implied when Jesus said in John 14:10 "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." Their existence is mutual and reciprocal and they are and subsist in one another; which is called perichoresis/circumincession. This follows from their being the same numerical substance: if one of the persons be self-existent, the other must be so too.  In Christ all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form. There can nothing belonging to the deity be lacking in Christ, and consequently not self-existence, which is of the very nature of the deity. Whence it follows, that the Son has his existence not only from his Father, but from himself. 

 

Someone might say, he that exists from another, does not exist from himself. But Edwards answers, that of finite and created being this is a true maxim; but it is not true concerning the infinite and uncreated Being of God. If we speak of beings of the former sort, it is supposed that he that exists from another was after the other, and it would be true. But when we speak of an eternal being or generation, it is otherwise, for then there is neither before or after. Wherefore, we must not argue from a corporeal and human generation to a spiritual and divine one, and such as was from eternity, for then we confound uncreated and eternal beings, with those that are created and finite. The Son was produced or generated out of the substance of the Father, but that substance did not exist before the production of the Son, for the production was from all eternity. the existence could not precede that generation, because they were both eternally together.

ChatGPT said:

This argument from John Edwards, as you've paraphrased it, is complex, but it appears internally coherent within the framework of a certain theological tradition, particularly in the context of classical Christian Trinitarianism. To evaluate whether it makes sense or is contradictory, let’s break down the key elements of his reasoning:

1. The Argument for Self-Existence of the Son

Edwards begins with the claim that John 5:26 (where Jesus says, “as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”) teaches that the Son has "life in Himself" in the same way as the Father does. The claim Edwards makes is that the Son must have a self-existent life, just as the Father does, because their essence and life are the same. If the essence of the Father and the Son were different, then the Father and the Son would be two different gods, which Edwards would reject.

• The Essence of the Father and Son are the Same: This is the core of Edwards' argument. He is asserting that if the Father and the Son have the same essence, then whatever is true of the Father (e.g., self-existence) must be true of the Son. The claim is that self-existence cannot be separated from divine essence. Therefore, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well.

2. The Challenge of the "Giving" of Life

A significant part of Edwards' argument responds to the apparent contradiction in John 5:26, which says the Father grants the Son the ability to have life in Himself. At first glance, this seems to suggest that the Son did not have life in Himself before, which could imply that He is not self-existent in the same way the Father is.

• Edwards' Response: Edwards argues that "giving" life to the Son does not negate the Son's self-existence. He draws a parallel to the resurrection of Christ, where the Father raises the Son, but that does not mean the Son is not capable of raising Himself. The act of "giving" life is not contradictory to the idea of self-existence because it pertains to the eternal generation, which does not imply temporal dependence or creation. The Son's self-existence is properly His, even if it is "given" to Him by the Father.

3. Eternal Generation and Perichoresis

Edwards moves on to discuss the doctrine of eternal generation, which posits that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. He also refers to the concept of perichoresis (mutual indwelling), where the Father and the Son are interpenetrating and mutually indwelling in each other. This means that the Father and the Son are so closely united that their existence is reciprocal.

• Mutual Essence: Edwards argues that since the Father and Son share the same essence, if the Father is self-existent, the Son must be self-existent as well. There is no contradiction here, as he is distinguishing between the finite, temporal generation of creatures and the eternal, divine generation of the Son. The Son is not a created being, and the generation of the Son is not a temporal act, but an eternal and necessary one.

4. Objection and Answer to "Existence from Another"

One of the key objections Edwards anticipates is the idea that if the Son exists from the Father, He does not exist from Himself. Edwards counters this by noting that such reasoning only applies to finite, created beings. For an eternal being like the Son, the categories of "before" and "after" do not apply because the generation of the Son is eternal. The Son's generation is not a temporal event, but a timeless relationship of mutual existence within the divine nature.

Evaluation: Does It Make Sense? Is It Contradictory?

In the context of classical Christian Trinitarian theology, Edwards' argument is plausible and consistent. It hinges on a few foundational theological premises:

1. The eternal generation of the Son: The Son is not created but eternally begotten by the Father.

2. Perichoresis: The Father and Son are not two separate divine substances but one substance in which each person fully shares the essence.

3. Self-existence of the divine essence: If the Father is self-existent, the Son, sharing the same essence, must also be self-existent.

If we accept these premises, Edwards' argument does not appear contradictory. He is drawing careful distinctions between temporal and eternal, finite and infinite realities. His rejection of the idea that "giving" life to the Son negates His self-existence aligns with the broader theological tradition, which often stresses the mystery of divine relations and how they differ from human understandings of generation and dependence.

However, it may be difficult to follow or accept without accepting these traditional theological concepts. The idea of eternal generation and perichoresis is not intuitively obvious and requires a certain metaphysical framework, which not everyone would share. For example, someone holding to a more unitarian or Arian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son would find this reasoning problematic.

Conclusion

Edwards’ argument is coherent within a classical Trinitarian framework, especially when understood as distinguishing between the eternal, necessary relationships within the Godhead and the temporal, contingent relationships that govern created beings. It avoids contradictions by carefully navigating the distinction between the temporal language of "giving" life and the eternal, necessary self-existence of the Son. However, it may seem mysterious or even contradictory to those who do not accept the metaphysical foundations of traditional Trinitarianism.