Eternal Sonship

[thecone137]

When we say that the Son is eternally begotten, this phrase, when taken literally, seems to be a contradiction. Therefore, this phrase must some kind of symbol which points to a deeper reality that we can only best describe using such language, and Scriptural revelation seems to be the best approach for sourcing back this concept.

What is the best Scripture for demonstration the eternal sonship of the pre-incarnate Son of God?

 

[Estel]

Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM".

and also:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Hope that’s along the lines of what you were looking for.

Also this seems to have more scripture verses about the topic: gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

 

[Augustine3]

When we say that the Son is eternally begotten, this phrase, when taken literally, seems to be a contradiction. Therefore, this phrase must some kind of symbol which points to a deeper reality that we can only best describe using such language, and Scriptural revelation seems to be the best approach for sourcing back this concept.

What is the best Scripture for demonstration the eternal sonship of the pre-incarnate Son of God?

No contradiction. Eternally begotten means the Father perpetually “fathers the Son” i.e. communicates his fatherly nature to his Son. I don’t like “proof texts” because they are usually taken out context. The immediate scriptural verse that comes to mind to support eternally begotten is:
*
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God - John 1:1*

 

[whoisdiss]

No contradiction if you look into the theology, but on the outside they seem to contradict. Let’s take a look at this.

The Father generates the Son, without the Father there would be no Son. This does not at all mean the Father created the Son, the Son has always existed, but if there was no Father there would not be a Son. The Father generates the Son, in other words “begets” the Son. And the Father always existing means the Son has always been existing since the Father generates him, and that also means the Son is God since only God can be always existing.

Therefor, the Father generates (begets) the Son. The Father has existed always and because he generates the Son that means the Son has existed always (It also means the Son is God since only God has existed eternally).

Here is a good scriptural passages for God the Son’s eternal sonship.

Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

---

God bless.

 

[thecone137]

No contradiction if you look into the theology, but on the outside they seem to contradict. Let’s take a look at this.

The Father generates the Son, without the Father there would be no Son. This does not at all mean the Father created the Son, the Son has always existed, but if there was no Father there would not be a Son. The Father generates the Son, in other words “begets” the Son. And the Father always existing means the Son has always been existing since the Father generates him, and that also means the Son is God since only God can be always existing.

Therefor, the Father generates (begets) the Son. The Father has existed always and because he generates the Son that means the Son has existed always (It also means the Son is God since only God has existed eternally).

Here is a good scriptural passages for God the Son’s eternal sonship.

Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

---

God bless.

Thanks!

Wouldn’t it just be easier to say that the Father and Son are of the same nature (consubstantial) like we do in the creed? That would include the eternality of both persons without having seemingly unhelpful words such as “begotten” and “eternal”, which really causes people to dwell more on causality and time than substance and relation. I get the reason for needing to say “begotten, not made” to establish a distinction that separates us from Arians, but is it really still practical to use this kind of language?