The Theology of the "Eternally Begotten"

[Vico]

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.

Vladimir Lossky wrote 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.

 

[SleeepWarrior]

“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 .

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

That only sounds plausible if you are assuming religion is a false belief system and those religios people would be happier if they could put aside their differences. It only makes sense if you do not believe in God.

Because if you believe in God, then there is no compromise. There is Truth, and there is deception.

Unfortunately, polytheistic acceptance of all that would conflict with the message of monotheistic Christianity, namely that there is one God, who has provided one narrow and well defined way into Heaven.

It also conflicts with basic logic. Two assertions that contradict one another cannot both be true. One assertion is a lie, deception, misunderstanding, etc.

It is also absurd when you seek to compare the results of following a certain path. If all roads lead to the same god, then no matter which faith you ascribed to it would shape you into the same definition of righteousness, the same portrait of a faithful man of “god”. If you compare the faithful believers of various world belief systems, you find very different fruits of the faith the practice, very often at extreme odds with one another.

There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. All are invited. Few shall enter.

 

[SleeepWarrior]

“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.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

I just ran across an interesting comment that addresses this attitude while reading Pope Benedict’s book "Jesus of Nazareth ". He is discussing the third temptation of Christ.

“But don’t we all repeatedly tell Jesus that his message leads to conflict with the prevailing opinions, so that there is always a looming threat of failure, suffering, and persecution? The Christian empire or the secular power of the papacy is no longer a temptation today, but the interpretation of Christianity as a recipe for progress and the proclamation of universal prosperity as the real goal of all religions, including Christianity–this is the modern form of the same temptation.” P42-43

"Jesus, however, repeats to us what he said in reply to Satan, what he said to Peter, and what he explained further to the disciples of Emmaus: No kingdom of this world is the Kingdom of God, the total condition of mankind’s salvation. Earthly kingdoms remain earthly kingdoms, and anyone who claims to be able to establish the perfect world is the willing dupe of Satan and plays the world right into his hands.

Now, it is true that this leads to the great question that will be with us throughout this entire book: What did Jesus actually bring, if not peace, universal prosperity, and a better world? What has he brought?

The answer is very simple: God. … He has brought God, and now we know his face, now we can call upon him. Now we know the path that we human beings have to take in this world." P 43-44

 

[Tom_Baum]

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.

As far as “has proceeded or has been generated”, sure sounds like even tho it is “from all eternity” that at some time there was a Father but not a Son.

Isn’t it something that when we try to “put into words” things that are best just accepted, that is that God Is a Trinity, that all that we seem to do is try to come up with words that we pretend are saying something that it beyond our ability to comprehend or explain.

Do you think that “eternally begotten” means that God decided to become One of us even before creation and since time is part of creation even before time, as in when there was only eternity?

Almost like the First Person of the Trinity said, “Here’s the Plan”, the Second Person of the Trinity said, “Sounds good”, the Third Person of the Trinity said, “Let’s go for it”, fast forward and here we are chatting about it.

 

[Tom_Baum]

That only sounds plausible if you are assuming religion is a false belief system and those religios people would be happier if they could put aside their differences. It only makes sense if you do not believe in God.

Because if you believe in God, then there is no compromise. There is Truth, and there is deception.

Unfortunately, polytheistic acceptance of all that would conflict with the message of monotheistic Christianity, namely that there is one God, who has provided one narrow and well defined way into Heaven.

It also conflicts with basic logic. Two assertions that contradict one another cannot both be true. One assertion is a lie, deception, misunderstanding, etc.

It is also absurd when you seek to compare the results of following a certain path. If all roads lead to the same god, then no matter which faith you ascribed to it would shape you into the same definition of righteousness, the same portrait of a faithful man of “god”. If you compare the faithful believers of various world belief systems, you find very different fruits of the faith the practice, very often at extreme odds with one another.

There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. All are invited. Few shall enter.

You wrote, “All are invited. Few shall enter”, isn’t it written, “Many (ALL) are called, few are chosen”?

Quite a difference, I would say.

 

[SleeepWarrior]

You wrote, “All are invited. Few shall enter”, isn’t it written, “Many (ALL) are called, few are chosen”?

Quite a difference, I would say.

All of the difference in the world. In that statement, I was not quoting Scripture, and I’m glad you pointed it out because that is too important to paraphrase crudely.

I was trying to express that God seeks us all out, and wishes for all of us to accept Salvation, and offers us every aid we could possibly need or imagine. And still very few will choose to accept his gift.

I also had four kids tugging on my arm saying, “c’mon Mom, get off the computer!” So I ended in a hurry.

Thanks for pointing that out! I’ll be more careful.

 

[JimG]

As far as “has proceeded or has been generated”, sure sounds like even tho it is “from all eternity” that at some time there was a Father but not a Son.

Only if one thinks of God as having an extension in time. But he has no extension either in space or time, and there is no sequentiality to his existence.

If my mind is always generating an idea of you, and the idea is so perfect that it lacks nothing including personhood, then there was never a ‘time’ when you did not exist, assuming I had no beginning and my mind was always generating this perfect idea.

But that analogy uses the concept of time. God does not exist in time. Neither does the Son or Holy Spirit.

When a philosopher tries to explain the “generation of Persons” within the Trinity, it sounds like a “process” because our own minds think in terms of sequence, in terms of time. But it is not a process. It is an eternal now.

 

[Tom_Baum]

All of the difference in the world. In that statement, I was not quoting Scripture, and I’m glad you pointed it out because that is too important to paraphrase crudely.

I was trying to express that God seeks us all out, and wishes for all of us to accept Salvation, and offers us every aid we could possibly need or imagine. And still very few will choose to accept his gift.

I also had four kids tugging on my arm saying, “c’mon Mom, get off the computer!” So I ended in a hurry.

Thanks for pointing that out! I’ll be more careful.

As far as “I was trying to express that God seeks us all out, and wishes for all of us to accept Salvation, and offers us every aid we could possibly need or imagine. And still very few will choose to accept his gift.” and yet it still says that “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”, could be that God is going to “pull it off”, so to speak, even tho there seem to be not too many that think that God can.

Also concerning, “I also had four kids tugging on my arm saying, “c’mon Mom, get off the computer!” So I ended in a hurry.”, I wish you well, I, personally, think that being a Mom is one of the toughest “jobs” on the planet and also can be one of the most rewarding.

I don’t always use the words “job/jobs” the same as most people.

As far as that quote, “Many are called, few are chosen”, being “chosen” for something by God does NOT mean that one is better or anything of the kind, it simply means that one is chosen.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Only if one thinks of God as having an extension in time. But he has no extension either in space or time, and there is no sequentiality to his existence.

If my mind is always generating an idea of you, and the idea is so perfect that it lacks nothing including personhood, then there was never a ‘time’ when you did not exist, assuming I had no beginning and my mind was always generating this perfect idea.

But that analogy uses the concept of time. God does not exist in time. Neither does the Son or Holy Spirit.

When a philosopher tries to explain the “generation of Persons” within the Trinity, it sounds like a “process” because our own minds think in terms of sequence, in terms of time. But it is not a process. It is an eternal now.

As far as “Only if one thinks of God as having an extension in time. But he has no extension either in space or time, and there is no sequentiality to his existence.”, I don’t know exactly what you mean by this but God-Incarnate very much had a “place” in space and time and He entered space and time, one could say, just how most of the rest of us humans did.

I happen to disagree with your statement, “there is no sequentiality to his existence” because, I would say, there is very much a “sequentiality to his existence”, meaning God-Incarnate, God-Incarnate came into this world at a very specific point in space and time and before that, He was NOT in this world, I guess one could say that He was in the womb for a while but before Mary said YES, He wasn’t even there.

Also concerning, “When a philosopher tries to explain the “generation of Persons” within the Trinity, it sounds like a “process” because our own minds think in terms of sequence, in terms of time. But it is not a process. It is an eternal now”, my personal opinion is that when a philosopher attempts to do this about the only thing that the philosopher proves is that the aforementioned philosopher does NOT have a clue what he/she is talking about.

Do you believe “there was never a ‘time’ when you did not exist”, the “you” meaning you, JimG?

 

[JimG]

As far as “Only if one thinks of God as having an extension in time. But he has no extension either in space or time, and there is no sequentiality to his existence.”, I don’t know exactly what you mean by this but God-Incarnate very much had a “place” in space and time and He entered space and time, one could say, just how most of the rest of us humans did.

I happen to disagree with your statement, “there is no sequentiality to his existence” because, I would say, there is very much a “sequentiality to his existence”, meaning God-Incarnate, God-Incarnate came into this world at a very specific point in space and time and before that, He was NOT in this world, I guess one could say that He was in the womb for a while but before Mary said YES, He wasn’t even there.

Also concerning, “When a philosopher tries to explain the “generation of Persons” within the Trinity, it sounds like a “process” because our own minds think in terms of sequence, in terms of time. But it is not a process. It is an eternal now”, my personal opinion is that when a philosopher attempts to do this about the only thing that the philosopher proves is that the aforementioned philosopher does NOT have a clue what he/she is talking about.

Do you believe “there was never a ‘time’ when you did not exist”, the “you” meaning you, JimG?

I agree with what you say about Jesus entering the world at a specific point in time. Of course Jesus existed sequentially because in his human nature he is just like us, having a human body and soul, and an extension in space and time.

My comments were directed toward God as God and the Divine Persons in their divine nature, and the eternal generation of persons outside of time. Jesus is God and Man, the eternally begotten God the Son existing from all eternity, and the Son of Mary, brought into human history as man. As God, he exists eternally and is not bounded by time; as man, he is human like us with a human lifespan. My intent was to discuss the eternal generation, rather than the hypostatic union of Jesus’ human and divine natures. Sorry if I was unclear.

(Of course there was a time when I did not exist, but there was never a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist!) The paradox is that Jesus is that person!

 

[Tom_Baum]

I agree with what you say about Jesus entering the world at a specific point in time. Of course Jesus existed sequentially because in his human nature he is just like us, having a human body and soul, and an extension in space and time.

My comments were directed toward God as God and the Divine Persons in their divine nature, and the eternal generation of persons outside of time. Jesus is God and Man, the eternally begotten God the Son existing from all eternity, and the Son of Mary, brought into human history as man. As God, he exists eternally and is not bounded by time; as man, he is human like us with a human lifespan. My intent was to discuss the eternal generation, rather than the hypostatic union of Jesus’ human and divine natures. Sorry if I was unclear.

(Of course there was a time when I did not exist, but there was never a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist!)

As far as, “(Of course there was a time when I did not exist, but there was never a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist!)”.

I also believe that there was never a time that the “Second Person of the Trinity did not exist”, however, I also believe that since God-Incarnate came to us at a very specific time and place that there was a time when He did not exist except as the “Second Person of the Trinity”, not as God-Incarnate and that God-Incarnate came into existence when Mary said YES.

 

[JimG]

As far as, “(Of course there was a time when I did not exist, but there was never a time when the Second Person of the Trinity did not exist!)”.

I also believe that there was never a time that the “Second Person of the Trinity did not exist”, however, I also believe that since God-Incarnate came to us at a very specific time and place that there was a time when He did not exist except as the “Second Person of the Trinity”, not as God-Incarnate and that God-Incarnate came into existence when Mary said YES.

Yes, I can agree with this, with perhaps one qualifying statement. It is not as though the Second Person of the Trinity was “waiting” for just the right time to enter the world. He didn’t have to wait. I remember a question in an old catechism that implied that God “delayed” from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, to send his son into the world to save it. That’s a human way of looking at it. But the Son wasn’t actually waiting, because God exists in eternity, not time. There is no waiting.

From God’s perspective, the Son looks down at human history as one might look at a line on a piece of paper, marked off with years and century marks. He points to a particular point on the line and says, “There! That’s where I will enter human history! And I will enter it now! Because I do everything now!”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But the Son wasn’t actually waiting, because God exists in eternity, not time. There is no waiting.

From God’s perspective, the Son looks down at human history as one might look at a line on a piece of paper, marked off with years and century marks. He points to a particular point on the line and says, “There! That’s where I will enter human history! And I will enter it now! Because I do everything now!”

No waiting as such, but mankind did have to be made ready for, and actually participate in the preparation of His coming.
From Noah, to Abraham, Moses, Mary and those between, we find God reaching out to us in time, and in those instances, we were transformed - made ready to receive Him, when He came in the flesh as Jesus.

 

[JimG]

No waiting as such, but mankind did have to be made ready for, and actually participate in the preparation of His coming.
From Noah, to Abraham, Moses, Mary and those between, we find God reaching out to us in time, and in those instances, we were transformed - made ready to receive Him, when He came in the flesh as Jesus.

Yes, mankind was being prepared. We waited. God didn’t.

 

[MarcoPG]

To understand what eternally begotten means, not created with a beginning nor continually begotten because out of time, you could ambe use the famous Cogito ergo sum from Descartes. My professor of philosophy many years ago said that actually there is no causality in the cogito. Thus therefore is a bad translation. But you could still understand this. It doesn’t mean Because I think, then I am, or Because I am, then I an think. These are two aspects of the same moment. I think, I am. I am what I think.

I think since I am, understood as a consequence, but not temporal. Without being you cannot think.
I am since I think. Without thinking, you would not be able to know that you are.

So it is such dynamism that is expressed in the eternal “procreation” of the Son in the Trinity. The Father knows Himself since he Thinks, and what he thinks is. What is what he thinks? Knowledge of Himself, before thinking of creatopn creation. Since God has perfect knowledge of HImself and contemplate Himself, the image that He has of HImself cannot be blurred like our could. Therefore the Son begotten by The thinking of the Father is eternal, since God being perfect there was no moment in eternity where he began to know HImself or learned something about himself, and no moment where he finished knowing Himself. That Knowledge is The Son, The Logos, The Word, Who is totally equal to the Father. You may think tha the Father is the cause of the Son, since a father begets the Son, but the Son can’t do the same. But think about this. What makes of a father a father? fatherhood, the fact to have a Son. Since God’s nature is unchangeable and was revealed by his Son as being the Father, the Son was always there, begotten because the Father is Father and he is the Son, but also causing the Father to be a father. That also “causes” the kenosis in the Trinity, which is the source of Love (philosophically, not temporally). Charity, humility. The Father may say: I am because of You, Son. The Son replies, I am because of you, Father and that Love is the Holy Spirit. And as an image of this, you could see someone eternally bowing to the other, getting under the Other One, in a circle of Love. The Procession of the Persons and the “economy” or “functioning” of it comes from that Love.

 

[jochoa]

The Son is characterized as eternally begotten of the Father.

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

Another Catholic term for eternally begotten is eternally generated. From my understanding of Theology, it means born of the Father by means of replication with the same exact image/substance before the beginning of time. In other personal terms, born by the process of cloning when God was the only being to exist. As a conceptual example, consider the initial being of identical humans. The being exists as a single entity, then proceeds to generate a second entity with the exact same image. In the case of God, the Father remains the initial single entity, while the Son goes on to become fully human.

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.

“eternally begotten” = “eternally caused” = “eternally procreated”

Your equation of caused = procreated is incomplete. Sure every procreation is caused, however, not every cause is a procreation. As an example, destruction is caused.

The Son is not a creation of the Father because the Son is the uncreated God, and if your understanding of Theology does not recognize that, you have an incomplete understanding.

Thanks for sharing the very enjoyable food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[Tom_Baum]

Another Catholic term for eternally begotten is eternally generated. From my understanding of Theology, it means born of the Father by means of replication with the same exact image/substance before the beginning of time. In other personal terms, born by the process of cloning when God was the only being to exist. As a conceptual example, consider the initial being of identical humans. The being exists as a single entity, then proceeds to generate a second entity with the exact same image. In the case of God, the Father remains the initial single entity, while the Son goes on to become fully human.

Your equation of caused = procreated is incomplete. Sure every procreation is caused, however, not every cause is a procreation. As an example, destruction is caused.

The Son is not a creation of the Father because the Son is the uncreated God, and if your understanding of Theology does not recognize that, you have an incomplete understanding.

Thanks for sharing the very enjoyable food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

You are saying that by “your” understanding of Theology that the Trinity wasn’t always but came to be by God cloning God, I disagree, either the Trinity always was or God is NOT a Trinity, it is that simple.

Some things simply are and are beyond our limited understanding or they aren’t and it is with God being a Trinity, either God Is a Trinity and always was a Trinity and always will be a Trinity or God isn’t.

God didn’t BECOME a Trinity.

Seems to me that we do both God and ourselves a disservice when we try to explain God rather than just accept that some things about God are beyond our comprehension and I believe that the Trinitarian Nature of God is just one of those things.

 

[MarcoPG]

You are saying that by “your” understanding of Theology that the Trinity wasn’t always but came to be by God cloning God, I disagree, either the Trinity always was or God is NOT a Trinity, it is that simple.

Some things simply are and are beyond our limited understanding or they aren’t and it is with God being a Trinity, either God Is a Trinity and always was a Trinity and always will be a Trinity or God isn’t.

God didn’t BECOME a Trinity.

Seems to me that we do both God and ourselves a disservice when we try to explain God rather than just accept that some things about God are beyond our comprehension and I believe that the Trinitarian Nature of God is just one of those things.

Or was an amoeba . You could possibly say this as an analogy, if you exclude Time as you do, so that what logically happened didn’t happen before or after, it was. There was never a “moment” in Eternity when God was one Person, and then Three. these examples are always imperfect to talk of the nature of God.

 

[jochoa]

You are saying that by “your” understanding of Theology that the Trinity wasn’t always but came to be by God cloning God, I disagree, either the Trinity always was or God is NOT a Trinity, it is that simple.

I understand the Trinity always was, is, and will be. Yet I also recognize that even though the Creed knows God is begotten, becomes man, and proceeds, doesn’t change that God always was, is, and will be begotten, made man, and proceeding. Perhaps stating, “…born by the process of eternal cloning,” would be more fitting.

Some things simply are and are beyond our limited understanding or they aren’t and it is with God being a Trinity, either God Is a Trinity and always was a Trinity and always will be a Trinity or God isn’t.

Definitely, some things are beyond our limited understanding, however, nothing is beyond God’s unlimited understanding, and thankfully He shares His knowledge with us.

Seems to me that we do both God and ourselves a disservice when we try to explain God rather than just accept that some things about God are beyond our comprehension and I believe that the Trinitarian Nature of God is just one of those things.

I definitely agree that there is a time for just accepting any thing about God, yet I have also learned comprehension of all things is attainable through God and His Church, even the Trinitarian Nature of God.

Thanks for sharing your perceptions of my understandings! I really enjoy refining my understandings!