This is intriguing, but raises the following question: how can the Son be both contingent (because begotten of the Father) and eternal? Because if that’s metaphysically possible, then an eternal, contingent universe is possible and a First Cause is no longer necessary.The statement that God is simple refers to the nature of his being—that is, that he is not composed of parts. Because he has no parts, he has no extension in space or time. He is a purely spiritual being. His attributes are equivalent to his essence. We say that God is love. We can also say that God is mercy; God is justice; God is omniscience, with respect to every attribute of God.
The human soul is also a spiritual substance, not composed of parts. That is why it survives separation from the body at death. Yet we refer to two distinct faculties of the soul: intellect and will. Using these faculties of our soul, we are able to know and to love, to intellectually apprehend reality, and to make choices.
Let’s make an analogy with God. A human being, using his intellect, can know himself.
He can never know himself perfectly, though. He can’t know the state of every atom, every molecule, in his body, at any instant. He can’t apprehend the complexity of his psychological makeup perfectly. So his knowledge of himself is imperfect.
God’s knowledge, however, is perfect and complete. God knows all things, including himself. God’s knowledge of himself is perfect and complete. You might, with analogy to human knowledge, say that from all eternity, God forms a perfect idea of himself.
God’s idea of himself is so perfect that there is nothing lacking in his idea of himself. Everything in the subject is present in the idea—including the aspect of personhood. From all eternity, God (whom we can now call the Father) generates a perfect idea of himself, perfectly including every aspect, including personhood. We call this the Word, or Son.
Both Father and Son totally possess the one divine nature, which, being simple, can not be divided. But each is a Person.
The human soul can both know and love. So can God. The Father and Son love each other, generating a love so perfect that it also does not lack the aspect of personhood. This is the Holy Spirit.
Through the divine intellect, the Son is eternally generated. Through the divine will or the movement of divine love, the Holy Spirit is eternally generated. And the substance of the divine nature remains one being, expressed as three Persons.
Jesus, as God, is not contingent, but necessary. There is no metaphysical barrier to Jesus being eternal.This is intriguing, but raises the following question: how can the Son be both contingent (because begotten of the Father) and eternal? Because if that’s metaphysically possible, then an eternal, contingent universe is possible and a First Cause is no longer necessary.
The Son is not contingent. The Son is fully God, and God is not contingent.This is intriguing, but raises the following question: how can the Son be both contingent (because begotten of the Father) and eternal? Because if that’s metaphysically possible, then an eternal, contingent universe is possible and a First Cause is no longer necessary.
Can you describe God as “begotten”? God has no beginning and thus cannot be “begotten”. So how can the begotten Son equal God?The Son is not contingent. The Son is fully God, and God is not contingent.
That the Son relates to the Father in a manner described as that of a son begotten by a father does not mean that the Son’s existence is unnecessary or that the Father had to choose to beget the Son.
Usagi
“Begotten” is the word we use to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is not to be taken to mean that the Son had a beginning in time. That was the issue that was settled at the First Council of Nicaea. Arius contended that the Son must be a lesser entity, similar to but not the same as God, and that “there was a time when the Son was not.” The Council rejected those propositions and affirmed that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, begotten from all eternity rather than in time.Can you describe God as “begotten”? God has no beginning and thus cannot be “begotten”. So how can the begotten Son equal God?
What is the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son that justifies the use of the word “begotten” and avoids making the Son contingent on the Father?“Begotten” is the word we use to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is not to be taken to mean that the Son had a beginning in time. That was the issue that was settled at the First Council of Nicaea. Arius contended that the Son must be a lesser entity, similar to but not the same as God, and that “there was a time when the Son was not.” The Council rejected those propositions and affirmed that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, begotten from all eternity rather than in time.
Usagi
Then it is equally correct to say that the Son begets the Father? A process without end must come back around, and whatever the relationship between the Father and the Son, it has to end up going the same between the Son and the Father, right?None of the Persons of the Trinity are contingent. The Father does not create the Son; the Father and Son do not create the Holy Spirit.
Theology uses the term ‘begotten of’ or ‘generates’ to describe the procession of persons within the Godhead. The procession of persons within the Godhead does not take any time. It has no beginning point. It is eternal, without beginning or end, it is always now.
Also keep in mind that normally the term contingent is applied to being, or essence, not to person. And there is only one essence, one being, one nature, one God. All the Persons of the Trinity wholly possess, not share, the one divine nature. There is one God, not three. There are three Persons, and persons are not parts.
One should view the procession of Persons as a necessary, non-contingent, eternal operation of the faculties of God’s intellect and will, present from all eternity.
(But when speaking of God in words, we find it necessary to try to apply human concepts in the discussion of Divine Being. We can never perfectly describe God either in his Being or in his function. So the discussion of God’s intellect and will uses human terms which are only analogically applicable to eternal Being.)
Wrong. The procession is not circular. But it is eternal.Then it is equally correct to say that the Son begets the Father? A process without end must come back around, and whatever the relationship between the Father and the Son, it has to end up going the same between the Son and the Father, right?
How can the Son proceed from the Father if both are eternally present and completely equivalent? It still looks to me like the word “begotten” is either meaningless or signifies contingency. I want to understand how this works, I really do. I promise I’m not trying to be obstinate.Wrong. The procession is not circular. But it is eternal.
(A process would only ‘come back around’ if it occurred in time, and God exists in eternity, not time.)
[And even a temporal process could be an infinite series, not a circular series.]
I have recently gotten myself in trouble with law and work. My mother also ended up in hospital. The distraction has taken away from my misery. I may be fired after tomorrow’s hearing we’ll see. I’ve come to accept that it is God’s will whatever happens. I befriended the woman in the bed next to my mom. She had her heal removed due to diabetes…she has no family. She is a big reader so i brought her some books and promised to deliver more when they move her to a rehab facility that will be close to my mom’s place. Normally when I do something like this I don’t like to talk about it because I believe in what George Steinbrenner’s father told him “If more than two people know about it, you did it for the wrong reasons”…I’m discussing it now because I feel offering this kind of alternative to others in situations where they need to get their mind off their own troubles and start thinking about others. It works. I also like to believe that God is everywhere at all times , in others, and watching. If we all treated each other as if we thought God was in others what would the world be like?How can God be ultimately simple while involving three distinguishable persons?
It can be like trying to fit a round peg in a triangular hole; you are trying to understand a mystery on your own terms. You would have a religious/metaphysical perspective arising from your belief system that cannot integrate the understandings that are being presented to you. If you want to know the truth concerning the Holy Trinity, consider it as true and see how the rest fits together.How can the Son proceed from the Father if both are eternally present and completely equivalent? It still looks to me like the word “begotten” is either meaningless or signifies contingency. I want to understand how this works, I really do. I promise I’m not trying to be obstinate.
Ah, well, neither you nor I will ever understand “how it works.” We are talking here about the inner life of God. We are discussing a Trinity of Persons within One Being which we would have no knowledge of without divine revelation. Even in heaven, participating in the inner life of God ourselves, we can never have complete understanding of God’s inner life.How can the Son proceed from the Father if both are eternally present and completely equivalent? It still looks to me like the word “begotten” is either meaningless or signifies contingency. I want to understand how this works, I really do. I promise I’m not trying to be obstinate.
I am praying for you.I have recently gotten myself in trouble with law and work. My mother also ended up in hospital. The distraction has taken away from my misery. I may be fired after tomorrow’s hearing we’ll see. I’ve come to accept that it is God’s will whatever happens. I befriended the woman in the bed next to my mom. . . I also like to believe that God is everywhere at all times , in others, and watching. If we all treated each other as if we thought God was in others what would the world be like?
Whether or not one can describe God as begotten is dependent upon one’s accepted definition of God. So, who or what do you say God is?Can you describe God as “begotten”? God has no beginning and thus cannot be “begotten”. So how can the begotten Son equal God?
The Son has the exact same body through duplication.What is the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son that justifies the use of the word “begotten” and avoids making the Son contingent on the Father?
The Father is distinctly the first person of the Holy Trinity.Then it is equally correct to say that the Son begets the Father?
There are two means I know of by which to reconcile this timeless procession:How can the Son proceed from the Father if both are eternally present and completely equivalent?
your kind words stuck with me today as I entered the lions den…I was going to quit (resign) before it started but I didn’t…I pray that it will turn out the right way (the way He wants)…I am reluctant to say “I think” it will be okay because it is when I think that I get in trouble. Anyway, after saying the rosary this morning then reading your words I felt ready to go…during the closing arguments I clutched my rosary beads for dear life…God is…the decision will not be for at least a week…my life has changed for the better either wayI am praying for you.
God is Love.
But it is an internal dependency. God is dependent on God. In this way, God is no different than everyone else. I am also dependent on me. Without me, I could not exist. This is true of everything in existence (including God). If you want to argue that the existence of God is contingent on the existence of God (which is what you’re doing), you will have no argument from me. But that’s not what “contingency” means, logically. Contingency means, “THIS must exist in order for THAT to exist.” It does not mean “THIS must exist in order for THIS to exist.”Then God is made of different parts (the Father and Son are different enough to avoid self-love), therefore dependent on those parts, therefore contingent and not necessary.
If the Father existed without the Son (or vice-versa) then you would be correct. If God IS love, but not self-love, then there must be an object of that love. But, if the Father and the Son are co-eternal, and if neither the Father nor the Son can be “destroyed,” then there is no discrepancy. The Father-Son analogy is flawed (as all Trinity analogies are flawed to some extent) by our human notion that a father comes “before” his son. This notion is based on our understanding of the chronological passage of time, which God exists beyond. God has never changed - there was never a “time” when there was the Father but not the Son. These terms are used to help us comprehend the Trinity, in a very limited and imperfect manner (but it is, perhaps, the best we can do).Moreover, the Father and Son are not perfect, for each has something the other lacks (or else they’d be completely the same and one thing, not two).