The Theology of the "Eternally Begotten"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we truly believe that God Is a Trinitarian God than we can easily see that when we try to put God in a “formula”, so to speak, we find that human language can be quite inadequate.

As far as “eternally begotten”, this applies to God-Incarnate not the Second Person of the Trinity in that God knew from before creation itself that God was going to be Incarnated.

Jesus, God-Incarnate, is both created and uncreated in that the Second Person of the Trinity always was, so to speak, just as the First and Third Persons of the Trinity always were but the Incarnation happened at a specific point in time and I would say that that point in time is when Mary said “YES”.
 
The Son does.
So you claim. But you have supported this claim with a logical fallacy.
“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless.
Begotten has multiple meanings. Your equation commits an equivocation falacy. In the context in which it is used the explain the relationship between God the Father and Son of God, begotten =/= procreated.
 
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.”
You think this makes more sense than:
“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
I think you are trying to make sense of the Trinity in terms you understand.
I prefer to stick with what revelation and far better minds than mine, have written on the subject.
It is a mystery that will be known when we come fully face-to-face with God. He is the Truth.
The entire point to these exercises is to develop our relationship with and grow ever closer to God.
It is better to seek Him, and then with the grace and guidance of the Holy Spirit, try to formulate the ideas that spring from that relationship (if there is still a point of doing so).
 
I think you are trying to make sense of the Trinity in terms you understand.
Agreed. I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. (I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. If we aren’t about able to articulate a reason for why God should be trinue, then we have no reason believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.)
 
Agreed. I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. (I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. If we aren’t about able to articulate a reason for why God should be trinue, then we have no reason believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.)
The statement that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father is not an argument for the Trinity. it does not attempt to prove the Trinity. It’s merely one way of speaking about the relationship between the Father and the Son.

Eternally procreated and eternally caused are not equivalent statements about the relationship between the Father and Son, because the Son is neither caused nor created. But the Son’s relationship with the Father is analogous to the relationship a temporal son has with his temporal father. Analogous means something is like, but also unlike. Anything involving creation or causality would be an example of how the relationship between the Father and the Son is unlike the relationship between a temporal father and his temporal son.
 
. . . If we aren’t about able to articulate a reason for why God should be trinue, then we have no reason believe that God is triune. . . .
God is eternal, complete in Himself, and He is Love. To be Love, independent of His creation, He has to transcend individual personhood. My reason would be something along those lines.
 
If we truly believe that God Is a Trinitarian God than we can easily see that when we try to put God in a “formula”, so to speak, we find that human language can be quite inadequate.

As far as “eternally begotten”, this applies to God-Incarnate not the Second Person of the Trinity in that God knew from before creation itself that God was going to be Incarnated.

Jesus, God-Incarnate, is both created and uncreated in that the Second Person of the Trinity always was, so to speak, just as the First and Third Persons of the Trinity always were but the Incarnation happened at a specific point in time and I would say that that point in time is when Mary said “YES”.
The “eternally begotten” refers to the metaphysical relationship between the Father and the Son, not merely to the physical conception and birth of the Christ child.
“The Son is generated (“born” or “begotten”), and the Spirit proceeds, eternally. Augustine of Hippo explains, “Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst, ‘This day have I begotten Thee.’”[Ps 2:7]” (source: Wikipedia: Trinity)
 
40.png
Counterpoint:
“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless
Begotten has multiple meanings. Your equation commits an equivocation falacy. In the context in which it is used the explain the relationship between God the Father and Son of God, begotten =/= procreated.
The Son is generated (“born” or “begotten”), and the Spirit proceeds, eternally. Augustine of Hippo explains, “Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst, ‘This day have I begotten Thee.’”[Ps 2:7] (source: Wikipedia: Trinity)
To “generate” is “to produce (something) or cause (something) to be produced” or “to be the cause of or reason for (something, such as interest or excitement)” (source: Merriam-Webster)

To modify my previous equation:

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” = “eternally generated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless.
 
Eternally procreated and eternally caused are not equivalent statements about the relationship between the Father and Son, because the Son is neither caused nor created. But the Son’s relationship with the Father is analogous to the relationship a temporal son has with his temporal father. Analogous means something is like, but also unlike. Anything involving creation or causality would be an example of how the relationship between the Father and the Son is unlike the relationship between a temporal father and his temporal son.
The Son is generated (“born” or “begotten”), and the Spirit proceeds, eternally. Augustine of Hippo explains, “Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst, ‘This day have I begotten Thee.’”[Ps 2:7] (source: Wikipedia: Trinity)
To “generate” is “to produce (something) or cause (something) to be produced” or “to be the cause of or reason for (something, such as interest or excitement)” (source: Merriam-Webster)

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” = “eternally generated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless.
 
God is eternal, complete in Himself, and He is Love. To be Love, independent of His creation, He has to transcend individual personhood. My reason would be something along those lines.
Okay. But the bottom line is that Love creates.
 
To “generate” is “to produce (something) or cause (something) to be produced” or “to be the cause of or reason for (something, such as interest or excitement)” (source: Merriam-Webster)

To modify my previous equation:

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated” = “eternally generated” <= And if you don’t agree with this equation, then you render the term “begotten” completely meaningless.
Spirit from spirit, analogous structure.
 
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.
I love your post:thumbsup:

The theology of the “Eternally Begotten” deals directly with the Procession of the blessed Trinity in what the early Church Father’s call the “Divine Economy”. In reflecting the procession of persons, reason and faith have already graduated that God is One.

One thing to take into consideration here, is that the Monarch, Essence of God or the Father proceeds from no one. We try not to extol the Monarchy at the expense of the divine economy.

When God the Father is the cause of creation and the Son is the creative cause, when the Holy Spirit perfects and makes them known, this procession is perceived by human standards a division in time. Yet the procession is eternal where there is no time or space. What is revealed in time from the eternal is when God the Holy Spirit makes the procession known, or perfects the works of the Son in the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit makes these known to our humanity who has revealed them.

Here is a mystery for you that reaches into the depths of the Only Begotten and the One who Begets. God has spoken only One Word in all of creation, and that Word became flesh. In John 1:1-14 when read with Genesis 1:1…through the creation week introduces the begetting and the only begotten.

God the Father being principle without principle and Jesus Christ (the only begotten Son of the Father) is True God from True God consubstantial with the Father.

The Catholic Church is careful here so as not to place God in a box or limit the powers of God or define God to time and space. To do so with carnal reason and understanding creates an idol and or a false deity.

The Catholic Church does not apply rigidity( terms ) to the procession of the blessed Trinity. What is professed in the Nicene Creed and the Filioque is in holding to what Jesus Christ revealed to our humanity of who the Father is and the Son and the Holy Spirit .

Procession gives name to the persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Because the Father gives the procession without any interval of time, the Father eternally Beget’s a Son who is the Logos. The Father sends and begets, yet what makes the second person of the Trinity who is the Son distinct from the first person the Father is in the begetting, for the Father begets the Son and sends, while the Son does what ever His Father is doing including sending, but the Son begets no one because the Son is distinct from the Father in revelation of person.

When the Father beget’s the Son, the Father is given ALL to the Son what ever the Father has except being Father who begets the Son.

The begetting gives name and revelation to the persons of the Trinity, the begetting does not reveal God’s True Essence. God’s eternal Essence is hidden in the blessed Trinity of persons, each person is consubstantial, in what is consubstantial points to the mystery of God’s Essence and divinity undefined and incomprehensible to the carnal mind.

Simply put, When the Father begets the Son eternally, God is all and in all, both things invisible and visible amen.

I have much more to elaborate here, suffice it to know simply that in the begotten reveals the fulfillment of God, in the begetting reveals the eternal procession of the blessed Trinity of persons, for the Father is always working and so the Son does like wise. God the Father gives life eternally, as the Son gives that same life in time and space with the Holy Spirit revealing and making them known. When God is all and in all

peace be with you.
 
Two points:
  1. Orthodox Christianity rejects the “filioque.” In fact, this is the primary reason for the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity.
  2. Lossky’s clearly supports the argument I have made in this thread.
The Orthodox never attempt to define the “filioque” the way the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims this divine revelation with in the Nicene Creed.

The Orthodox invent their own opinion of the filioque outside of the professed Creed, that falsely invents created deity’s and divides the Blessed Trinity with rigid terms from their misunderstood approach from the Greek terminology that misses the Latin expression of the Catholic faith.

John 13:20 “Truly, truly I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me, receives Him who sent me”

I think St. Hilary sums it up for the Orthodox here; “When the advocate has come **whom I will send you **from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of me” (Jn.15:26). "The advocate will come and the Son will send Him from the Father"

The CCC agrees with St. Hilary, because St. Hilary does not apply rigidity to the filioque here; “He who sends manifests His power in that which He sends”…( The Father distinctly sends because he is the source; the Son distinct from the Father also sends with His power the Father gives the Son)…“Nor will I infringe upon anyone’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son”… (St. Hilary adds Jn. 16:12-15)… “Many things yet I have to say to you, but when the Paraclete comes He will reveal them to you”, “Consequently (the Spirit) he receives from the Son who has been sent by Him and who proceeds from the Father”. St. Hilary asked the question? “Whether it is the same to receive from the Son as to proceed from the Father?”…“We shall have to admit that it is the One and the Same, to receive from the Son as it is to receive from the Father”…(parenthesis mine).

When the Orthodox define the flioque outside of the revealed Creed they invent a monster. When the filioque is defined within the professed Creed it holds to what God has revealed in the Son.

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son from one principle through one Spiration in Love.

St. Augustine; “But only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son all are co-equal. The Spirit from the divine economy is the same Spirit that proceeds from the Father and of the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the one who begets and from the one who is begotten of the Father. There can be no division from what is co-equal in what is Consubstantial, this substance of the divine all three persons being one God. Yet it is from the distinct persons from the economy divine which reveals the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

p.s I have yet to meet an Orthodox here on these forums who are out of communion with Peter’s Chair to define the filioque the way the Catholic Church teaches and expresses the filioque professed from the Nicene Creed.

Peace be with you
 
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.
You just massacred St. Basil’s beautiful creation teachings. Your opinion does not even come close to St Basil’s teachings.

Here is the real teaching, which you attempted at; St. Basil;…“of creation has the Father the cause of creation and the Son the creative cause and the Spirit perfecting that cause…Think first… of the original cause of all things that are made, the Father of the Creative cause the Son; of the perfecting cause, the Spirit…by the will of the Father are brought into being, by the operation of the Son, and perfected by the presence of the Spirit”.

St. Basil reveals two distinct “causes” of creation, one from the Father who’s will is the Cause, the Holy Spirit proceeds from and the Son is the distinct Creative Cause from which the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son”, who perfects with His presence, who is the Lord and giver of life.

The Father said; “Let us make man in OUR image”, the Logos takes dirt and water and transubstantiates the substance of water and dirt and forms flesh the first Adam. But Adam is lifeless in his flesh, until the eternal procession is revealed in time, when God breathed life into the nostrils of Adam, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, perfecting the works of the Son the creative cause in the will of the Father who eternally begets and eternally sends as the Cause of both the Creative cause and the presence of the one who perfects creation with His presence. In this procession is present eternally, when the Spirit makes them known in time and space.

God’s Essence does not transcend into time and space, for Him to do so, all creation would be consumed back into His existence of Essence and cease to exist. Because God is not an invert of Love in this way, God’s Love moves outward, the cosmos confirms this in their state of being moving outward.

God’s presence however, transcends into space and time in the persons of the blessed Trinity, whom God himself reveals to our humanity and all of creation through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ God incarnate.

Peace be with you
 
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.
I’m confused. Are you saying the Father created the Son? That wouldn’t be consistent with Christianity.

The Father is the first person of the Holy Trinity, and is a person whose existence is completely for the other. He is “for the other” to such an extent that he “leaves himself” out of love, he exists to be “one” with the other, “begetting” the Son. The Son, being an eternal image of the Father, is his Word and therefore a person, and as a person is completely “for” the other, the Father. As persons of love, they each breathe forth love in their relations to each other, the Father to the Son and the Son back to the Father. The love uniting them is the Holy Spirit. This love from Father to Son and back to Father just “is”, and all language to describe it is merely trying to relate a mystery we can’t fully comprehend.
 
I’m confused. Are you saying the Father created the Son? That wouldn’t be consistent with Christianity.

The Father is the first person of the Holy Trinity, and is a person whose existence is completely for the other. He is “for the other” to such an extent that he “leaves himself” out of love, he exists to be “one” with the other, “begetting” the Son. The Son, being an eternal image of the Father, is his Word and therefore a person, and as a person is completely “for” the other, the Father. As persons of love, they each breathe forth love in their relations to each other, the Father to the Son and the Son back to the Father. The love uniting them is the Holy Spirit. This love from Father to Son and back to Father just “is”, and all language to describe it is merely trying to relate a mystery we can’t fully comprehend.
The Father Love’s the Son and the Son Love’s the Father, when God is Love, in this divine Essence of Love Being the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Yet who can claim to ever have physically seen Love? Yet we know Love exists, because we experience Love in relationships. Who can claim to ever have seen the letters of a word float from the person speaking a word. knowledge makes them known, who has ever physically seen a voice utter it’s sound, yet we know the voice exist because we hear it. Never has anyone seen the voice the word or the physical presence of Love that is revealed from the person speaking the words “I Love you”.

For it is the Spirit that proceeds with in and from the Voice (Father) and the Word (Jesus incarnate) that is begotten and sent, when the recipient in hearing the Voice, the Word in the “I love you”, receives that Love from the other who begets and sends his love, the Spirit of that person reveals that Love to the recipient.

The words I love you mean nothing, unless that Love proceeds from the voice and the word, and the I love you can never exist unless it is sent from the source first, the heart, mind and spirit.

So when God begets the Son Love that is real and eternally consubstantially exist in His presence the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit One God who is Love and Love is Truth because it has no beginning and no end when God is Spirit, who makes them known to our humanity.

As you stated, in all that has ever been written, preached on the Trinity and the only begotten Son of God, none of them ever attempt to define God. We can only reflect what God reveals to our humanity.

We reflect as in a mirror who God is, and we know the reflection in the mirror is not the whole Essence of God in time and space. For no one see’s God and lives.

When Jesus is the living invisible Image of God personified in the flesh, when the full divine Essence of God is hidden in His humanity, when Jesus is Emmanuel = God is with us.

That is why the Father eternally begets the Son, and sends the Son, so that God’s presence (Love) is made known to humanity and all of creation, in and through the Trinity of persons eternally proceeding from one principle in one spiration of Love.

Your commentary triggered much reflection of God’s Love, sorry if I rambled here.😊

Peace be with you
 
The Catholic Church is careful here so as not to place God in a box or limit the powers of God or define God to time and space.
Gabriel, you invited me over here from the “Let’s Get Ecumenical” thread, with the thought that some of the posters here “touch on what you seek,” and might be able to give some constructive feedback. I made a number of postings regarding the Trinity in Sep-Nov, 2011 (see “Questions about Trinity” pages 2-7). I received some good (name removed by moderator)ut at that time, and have almost completely revised my website under the new heading www.religiouspluralism.ca, so now I am asking for more help.

If you have not already seen them, I believe you will get a lot out of those 2011 postings and the responses of various readers at that time. Recently, I made a new posting there, based on some new thinking (which appears on “Questions about Trinity,” page 8). Readers here should take a brief look at that if they care to understand where I’m coming from.

Briefly, my thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

For more details, please see www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes
 
The Father said; “Let us make man in OUR image”… Peace be with you
Gabriel, the scriptural confirmation that humans are made in the image of God suggests the common sense notion that human religions probably reflect the threefold psychology of One God in Trinity expression. On the face of it, maybe God is telling us something about his multi-dimensional self, through the diversity of major religions, which can be seen to fall into three basic “attitudes to the Absolute.”

Yes, orthodox Christians may have to adjust their thinking a bit in order to get up to speed, but I’m not making this stuff up. Clearly, God has manifested himself through several historic messengers. The diversity of world religions may very well be rooted in the diversity of the divine life itself. Thus, a deeper understanding of the Trinity might include a synthesis of all that God has revealed of himself, as contained in the wisdom of all the world’s major religions.

If you read the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, you will see that I am merely expanding on what is already inherent (but sometimes obscured or hidden) in the orthodox concept of the Trinity. Despite apparent differences, the underlying similarities among religions suggest the possibility that they may all be merely different facets of the same multi-dimensional reality. It is only common sense that the Trinity would reveal itself in three basic religious attitudes to the Absolute. Indeed, when we examine world religions, we see in the personalities they portray and the language they use, a reflection of one or other (or some combination) of the three divine psychological personae.

My thesis is that as the world becomes more and more religiously and culturally diverse, we will have no choice but to practice pluralism in order to avoid a “clash of civilizations” over what amounts to a possibly preventable and ultimately correctable misunderstanding. To quote from my Homepage, I maintain that:

“As religious communities and as growing nations, our futures are inextricably linked, being joined at the hip so to speak. We must develop a truly multi-cultural, multi-religious society in order to get along. Religious variety would be a wonderful source of cultural stimulus, if religious beliefs could be placed in some sort of comprehensive context which recognizes the differences, but integrates their best attitudes in one inclusive framework. Diversity can be healthy and something to be celebrated. Pluralism also has the virtue of being a universal moral worldview.

Mere toleration is too fragile a foundation for a world of religious differences in close proximity. It does nothing to unite people, and leaves in place the stereotypes and fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our elitism and ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly. If the interactions of society are to be at all a rational process, some set of principles must motivate the general participation of religious groups in the oneness of the community, without hindering the maintenance by each group of its own identity.

There must be some form of creative pluralism or constructive interpretation that will allow all groups to agree to a “minimal consensus” of shared beliefs in a systematic unity. And there must be some metaphysical systematic unity, because ultimately all truth (including science) must be part of the explanation of One God.

Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions, and a new understanding of religious diversity. An expanded abstract version of the Trinity can function as a metaphysical “architectonic principle” to unlock the providential purpose and meaning of religious variety, in the portrayal of the multi-dimensional nature of God.

In the past, religious misunderstandings have caused immense grief, but civilization is rapidly approaching the point where the very survival of the world depends on overcoming anti-social religious conflicts, and the negative impacts of increasing population on the planet. The human race can no longer afford religious strife that divides people and disturbs urgent cooperation on mutual issues such as conservation and sharing of resources, combating climate change, stimulating healthy economic growth, etc.

Peace in the world requires peace among religions. Religious pluralism is a necessary paradigm shift whose time has come. Absent any better idea, the Trinity Absolute concept of One God in three phases or personae is the only adequate metaphysical vehicle necessary and sufficient for a real form of religious pluralism that is more than just lukewarm toleration and talking past one another.”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
 
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”
We do not use the words “cause” and “effect” when speaking of the trinity because it can lead to awkward assumptions that don’t apply to God. For example, if the Son is of the same substance and nature as the Father and the Father’s substance is uncaused, how can the Son be eternally caused? This amounts to saying that the Father’s substance is both uncaused and caused at one and the same time.
Neither can it be said that the Son is eternally procreated because the Son is not a creature just as the Father is not a creature. The Son and Holy Spirit are of the same substance as the Father.
Eternally begotten means that the Son has proceeded or has been generated from the Father from all eternity and is of the same substance as the Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top