Do the Son and Holy Spirit Have Contingent Existence?

[TheosisM]

Well, I started this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=440502

which didn’t take off (difficult topic, I know!), and now that I’ve thought and read about this more, I have a few questions.

Firstly, what does it really mean that the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds? Is there a difference between being eternally begotten and eternally proceeding?

From my understanding, the purpose of the Council of Nicaea and the definition of “homoousios” was to combat the Arians and define that the Son has eternally existed, without beginning or end, and that part of the “essential attributes of deity” (Olson uses this definition of “one substance/being” in “The Story of Christian Theology”) included in “homoousios” is being eternal, hence why the Trinity includes the belief in “co-eternal” Persons.

How does being co-eternal relate to being “eternally begotten” and “eternally proceed[ing]”? These words (begotten and proceed) imply a time aspect, so I’m trying to understand what they are really referring to, since being eternal eliminates such a time aspect.

Also, what about the issue (if there is one) of “contingent existence”, whereby the Son and the Holy Spirit are somehow dependent on the Father for their existence (even though this is an eternal dependence)? The Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds, yet the Father is unbegotten and does not proceed. So, there seems to be a difference in the ontology of the Father vs. the Son and the Holy Spirit, where the Father has “necessary existence” and does not depend on anything for His existence, while the Son and the Holy Spirit have contingent existence, where the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. As a sidenote, I think this is what is meant by the Persons being distinct but inseparable, since their existence as Persons is interdependent.

So, what does this really say about being “homoousios” in nature?

 

[JimG]

These words (begotten and proceed) imply a time aspect, so I’m trying to understand what they are really referring to, since being eternal eliminates such a time aspect.

You’re right, the seeming implication of a time aspect or a process is wrong. God is eternal, and has no extension in space or time.

When we speak of any of the three Persons of the Trinity, it is good to keep in mind that we can still speak only of one Divine essence. Each divine person wholly and totally possesses the one divine essence; the divine essence is not “shared” among the three Persons.

Because the generation of Persons arises from the one divine nature, we can not speak of contingency in the Son or the Holy Spirit. Simply by existing, as a matter of his divine nature, the Father knows and loves perfectly. His perfect expression of self-knowledge speaks the Word, a distinct person but not a distinct essence. The perfect expression of the divine love between Father and Son generates the Holy Spirit, again a distinct person, but not a distinct nature.

No time passes between the Father’s self knowledge and the expression of it in the Son. No time passes between the Father and Son’s exchange of love and the generation of the Holy Spirit. Not a nanosecond of time. Eternity means that everything happens in the one divine Now.

 

[TheosisM]

You’re right, the seeming implication of a time aspect or a process is wrong. God is eternal, and has no extension in space or time.

When we speak of any of the three Persons of the Trinity, it is good to keep in mind that we can still speak only of one Divine essence. Each divine person wholly and totally possesses the one divine essence; the divine essence is not “shared” among the three Persons.

Because the generation of Persons arises from the one divine nature, we can not speak of contingency in the Son or the Holy Spirit. Simply by existing, as a matter of his divine nature, the Father knows and loves perfectly. His perfect expression of self-knowledge speaks the Word, a distinct person but not a distinct essence. The perfect expression of the divine love between Father and Son generates the Holy Spirit, again a distinct person, but not a distinct nature.

No time passes between the Father’s self knowledge and the expression of it in the Son. No time passes between the Father and Son’s exchange of love and the generation of the Holy Spirit. Not a nanosecond of time. Eternity means that everything happens in the one divine Now.

Thanks!

What does it mean to “generate” a Person? Also, is there a difference between “begotten” and “proceed”?

 

[JimG]

Thanks!

What does it mean to “generate” a Person? Also, is there a difference between “begotten” and “proceed”?

It’s sort of like your mind generating an idea. (Now, I’m viewing the mind as an immaterial faculty of the soul, not merely the operation of the brain.)

So the mind generates an idea corresponding to what comes in through the senses integrated by the brain. The idea corresponds to external reality. God also has a mind, and he generates an idea. But what does he “know.?” In the absence of creation, he knows himself. The idea which is generated, unlike human ideas, is perfect, and lacking in nothing that is present in the original reality, including personhood. We call that the Word, or the Son.

As to the difference between generate and proceed, I don’t think there’s much difference; my old philosophy professor might make some fine distinctions. But speaking of the Son as being generated by the self-knowledge, or intellect of God, and of the Holy Spirit as being generated by the act of will by which the Father and Son express love, the only difference I see is that one can be viewed as an act of intellect and the other as an act of will.

But since God is pure spirit and indivisible, these verbal distinctions are more to help the human intellect in understanding. The Divine Essence is at the same time more simple, and more profound.