The Theology of the "Eternally Begotten"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Counterpoint

Guest
The Son is characterized as eternally begotten of the Father.

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.” - Nicene Creed

Merriam-Webster generally defines “beget” as “to cause (something) to happen or exist” and “to become the father of (someone).” The full definition of beget is “to procreate as the father” and “to produce especially as an effect.”

Question:

What exactly does it mean to be “eternally begotten?”

The meaning seems to be fairly clear: The Son is the procreation of the Father. The Son is the effect; the Father is the cause.
 
Counterpoint said:
The Son is characterized as eternally begotten of the Father.

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.” - Nicene Creed

Merriam-Webster generally defines “beget” as “to cause (something) to happen or exist” and “to become the father of (someone).” The full definition of beget is “to procreate as the father” and “to produce especially as an effect.”

Question:

What exactly does it mean to be “eternally begotten?”

The meaning seems to be fairly clear: The Son is the procreation of the Father. The Son is the effect; the Father is the cause.
Click to expand...
Eternally means without change so there is no cause effect in time. The Father communicates His essence to the Son but not by any change.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote “eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation”:4. Again, I say, on hearing of a Son, understand it not merely in an improper sense, but as a Son in truth, a Son by nature, without beginning; not as having come out of bondage into a higher state of adoption, but a Son eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation. And in like manner on hearing of the First-born, think not that this is after the manner of men; for the first-born among men have other brothers also. And it is somewhere written, Israel is My son, My first-born. Exodus 4:22 But Israel is, as Reuben was, a first-born son rejected: for Reuben went up to his father’s couch; and Israel cast his Father’s Son out of the vineyard, and crucified Him.

newadvent.org/fathers/310111.htm
 
Vico said:
Eternally means without change so there is no cause effect in time. The Father communicates His essence to the Son but not by any change.
Click to expand...
But there is a eternal (timeless) cause and effect relationship between the Father and the Son.
Vico said:
Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote “eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation”
Click to expand...
Okay. The eternal procreation of the Son by the Father is an “inscrutable and incomprehensible” procreation. But it is, nevertheless, a procreation.
 
Nelka said:
The only use of the Merriam-Webster dictionary is kindling.
Click to expand...
It does not appear that you can accept the conventional meaning of the term “beget” because it threatens your preconceived beliefs.
 
Counterpoint said:
What exactly does it mean to be “eternally begotten?”
Click to expand...
It means exactly what it says. The Son is begotten of the Father eternally rather than temporally. It is necessary to say “eternally begotten” instead of simply “begotten” because the Father and the Son are both eternal persons.

Look at the definition of beget that you posted. It contains within it words such as “cause” and “become”. Those words are temporal. Temporal terms can’t be applied to eternal persons any more than eternal terms can be applies to temporal persons. So we specify that we are talking about eternal persons with the qualification of “eternally begotten”. As an eternal person, the Son cannot have been created by or caused by the Father. As an eternal person, the Son cannot have come into being because of some procreative act of the Father. If the Father and the Son are both eternal, then there was never a time when the Father existed without the Son; they have both always existed. So if the Father begets the Son, and the Father and the Son are both eternal, then quite logically we say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

Also of note, in your response to Vico you’re equivocating by saying procreation when the quote from Saint Cyril that he posted says generation. The concept you have in mind when you say procreation and the concept Saint Cyril had in mind when he said generation are not the same thing. It’s the same manner in which you’re equivocating by trying to apply the temporal meaning of beget to a being who is not temporal. The concepts are not the same. You are doing what those critical of the teachings of the Church typically do, either willfully or out of ignorance - create a straw man of those teachings based on a misunderstanding, then explain why that straw man is not correct. Whether or not it’s correct, it remains a straw man rather than what the Church actually teaches.
 
Counterpoint said:
But there is a eternal (timeless) cause and effect relationship between the Father and the Son…
Click to expand...
No because we are speaking one principle the Word was always with God, it is God.
Counterpoint said:
Okay. The eternal procreation of the Son by the Father is an “inscrutable and incomprehensible” procreation. But it is, nevertheless, a procreation.
Click to expand...
Its how your viewing. St Bonaventure and Aquinas state; “Good is essentially diffusive of itself, and the higher the nature the more fully and intimately it will be so”.

Thus the Son of God is God of God, Light of Light. The Son of God is the Word and the Word is consubstantial with the Father as was explicitly defined by the Nicene Council.

The forth ecumenical Council defines Christ’s nature-God.

…while Christ is a single, undivided person, He is not only from two natures but in two natures. The bishops acclaimed the Tome of St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome (died 461), in which the distinction between the two natures is clearly stated, although the unity of Christ’s person is also emphasized. In their proclamation of faith they stated their belief in 'one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly human… acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference between the natures is in no way removed because of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature is preserved, and both combine in one person and in one hypostasis.
 
Counterpoint said:
But there is a eternal (timeless) cause and effect relationship between the Father and the Son.

Okay. The eternal procreation of the Son by the Father is an “inscrutable and incomprehensible” procreation. But it is, nevertheless, a procreation.
Click to expand...
Patristic concepts may be helpful in terms of causality.

In terms of St Basil of Caesarea:
  • The ousia is the unity of the Godhead
  • The* hypostasis* is the particular ontological realities of the Three
  • The hypostasis of the Father is the “one God” source and cause of the Holy Trinity
and St Gregory Nazianzen
  • The willing one is the Father
  • The “will” is common to all three persons of the Trinity yet only arises from the willing one
Also, Vladimir Lossky wrote something of interest, In the Image and Likeness of God, pp. 82-83.
This unique cause is not prior to his effects, for in the Trinity there is no priority and posteriority. He is not superior to his effects, for the perfect cause cannot produce inferior effects. He is thus the cause of their equality with himself.{20} The causality ascribed to the person of the Father, who eternally begets the Son and eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, expresses the same idea as the monarchy of the Father: that the Father is the personal principle of unity of the Three, the source of their common possession of the same content, of the same essence.
  1. “For He would be the origin (arche) of petty and unworthy things, or rather the term ‘origin’ would be used in a petty and unworthy sense, if He were not the origin of the Godhead (tes Theotetos arche) and of the goodness contemplated in the Son and in the Spirit: in the former as Son and Word, in the latter as Spirit which proceeds without separation.”
    St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2, 38; P.G. 35, col. 445.
 
Counterpoint said:
It does not appear that you can accept the conventional meaning of the term “beget” because it threatens your preconceived beliefs.
Click to expand...
There in lies the crux of the futility of seeking any new understanding from this particular argument.

The Catholic Chuch is not using the conventional meaning of the term “beget”.

As your own quote of the Creed goes on to further clarify: Begotten, not made.

Beget in the theological sense is not synonomous with procreate, which is a specific form of making. The conventional meaning of the term “beget” cannot be accepted in this case not because of preconceived beliefs, but because it is irrellevent.

So instead of the semantic game, what are you really asking? Did the Father pre-exist the Son? That seems to be the ultimate conclusion to your line of questioning. If you can state the conclusion to your line of questioning that is a matter of faith and not semantics, that would be something to grapple with.
 
The Son is not an effect. He eternally begotten, not eternally caused.

God does not exist in time. There is no before and after. Analogically, one might say, the thought is eternally begotten by the thinker. Since there was never a time before the Son existed, He is not an effect. He exists coeternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Also, the Son is not a distinct entity from the Father.
Father and Son both totally possess (along with the Holy Spirit) the one divine essence. They are distinct Persons, but not separate essences. God is one entity, one nature, one Being.
 
Counterpoint said:
The Son is characterized as eternally begotten of the Father.

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.” - Nicene Creed

Merriam-Webster generally defines “beget” as “to cause (something) to happen or exist” and “to become the father of (someone).” The full definition of beget is “to procreate as the father” and “to produce especially as an effect.”

Question:

What exactly does it mean to be “eternally begotten?”

The meaning seems to be fairly clear: The Son is the procreation of the Father. The Son is the effect; the Father is the cause.
Click to expand...
Neither is the effect if either are eternally begotten.
 
I seem to remember that the biblical text this is based on can be translated as 'unique one" or maybe “unique son”. It is possible that the concept of “begotten” is simply a misunderstanding of the Greek word. The key to “eternally begotten” is eternal – no time or that there was not a time when the word or son did not exist. Exodus 3:14 “I am that I am” can also be translated as “I will be what I will be” indicating that in eternality it is possible for “change” within the being of God, but never departing from the fundamental nature of God.
 
Alindawyl said:
Look at the definition of beget that you posted. It contains within it words such as “cause” and “become”. Those words are temporal. Temporal terms can’t be applied to eternal persons any more than eternal terms can be applies to temporal persons. So we specify that we are talking about eternal persons with the qualification of “eternally begotten”. As an eternal person, the Son cannot have been created by or caused by the Father. As an eternal person, the Son cannot have come into being because of some procreative act of the Father. If the Father and the Son are both eternal, then there was never a time when the Father existed without the Son; they have both always existed. So if the Father begets the Son, and the Father and the Son are both eternal, then quite logically we say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
Click to expand...
You can’t have it both ways. If “eternally begotten” doesn’t imply temporality, then neither does “eternally cause.”

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated”
 
Vico said:
Also, Vladimir Lossky wrote something of interest, In the Image and Likeness of God, pp. 82-83.
This unique cause is not prior to his effects, for in the Trinity there is no priority and posteriority. He is not superior to his effects, for the perfect cause cannot produce inferior effects. He is thus the cause of their equality with himself.{20} The causality ascribed to the person of the Father, who eternally begets the Son and eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, expresses the same idea as the monarchy of the Father: that the Father is the personal principle of unity of the Three, the source of their common possession of the same content, of the same essence.
​
Click to expand...

Two points:
  1. Orthodox Christianity rejects the “filioque.” In fact, this is the primary reason for the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity.
“The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone [170] as “One God, One Father”,[171] Vladimir Lossky insisted that any notion of a double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son was incompatible with Orthodox theology. For Lossky, this incompatibility was so fundamental that “[W]hether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds of the separation of East and West.”[172][173]” (source: Wikipedia: ["]Filioque]("The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone [170))
Click to expand...
  1. Lossky’s clearly supports the argument I have made in this thread.
 
SleeepWarrior said:
So instead of the semantic game, what are you really asking? Did the Father pre-exist the Son? That seems to be the ultimate conclusion to your line of questioning. If you can state the conclusion to your line of questioning that is a matter of faith and not semantics, that would be something to grapple with.
Click to expand...
I clearly stated my conclusion in the OP: “The Son is the procreation of the Father. The Son is the effect; the Father is the cause.”
 
fhansen said:
Neither is the effect if either are eternally begotten.
Click to expand...
The Father is the begetter; the Son is the begotten. The Father is the cause; the Son is the effect. The Father is the procreator; the Son is the procreated.
 
fhansen said:
Counterpoint [/QUOTE said:
The Father is the begetter; the Son is the begotten. The Father is the cause; the Son is the effect. The Father is the procreator; the Son is the procreated.
Click to expand...

God has a cause???
Click to expand...

The Son does.

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless.
 
looking at the Proverbs 8:22 proof text:

Proverbs 8:22

The Lord **possessed **me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.(KJV)

The Lord **created **me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.(NET)

From the beginning, I was with the Lord. I was there before he began(CEV)

“The Lord ·begot [or **acquired; possessed] me ·when he began his work [L at the beginning of his path], long (EXB)
Proverbs 8:22 was translated in the Septuagint as, ‘The Lord created [qanah] me in the beginning of his ways…,’ and in the New World Translation as, ‘From time indefinite I was installed [qanah], from the start, from times earlier than the earth,’ although in EVERY other instance where the Hebrew term ‘qanah’ appears in the Book of Proverbs, it means to ‘acquire,’ ‘possess,’ and to ‘get.’ Proverbs 8:22 was a crucial verse in the Arian controversies of the fourth century CE. This verse was used both to support and refute the Arians’ claims.
Click to expand...
Koehler & Baumgartner’s “The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,” Volume Two (Brill, 2001), page 1112 along with William Lee Holladay’s A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament shows that acquire is the most likely meaning of the text.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100828131241AANRQ6D

If you think about it, it makes no sense to say that there was a “time” where God did not have the attribute of wisdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top