On this episode, we discuss the eternal generation of the Son of God within the context of Trinitarian theology and church history. The subject of the Son’s relationship to the Father is no less important today than it was during the Council of Nicea in 325. Nonetheless, several evangelical scholars have rejected the doctrine. Listen as we discuss what the doctrine means, its importance, and the theological consequences for rejecting it.
Links
Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy
Browse more episodes from this program and learn how to subscribe.
Although it wasn’t the direct subject of the episode, perhaps we should have treated Giles’ book more closely. Maybe we can treat that book in more depth down the road.
Greetings,
After listen to the episode on eternal generation I went ahead and ordered, “The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology,” (0830839658, published 2012) on Amazon before checking the podcast page for the episode. Later, when I went to the podcast page I found that your link below the media player for the episode took me to Giles book, “The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (0830826637, published 2002). When I noticed the the difference in the books, I wondered which book you were referring to in the podcast. Can you please clarify?
Thanks,
CM
Curtis
We discussed the book on eternal generation.
I apologize for the error. I’ve updated the link.
FYI:
Nick Norelli reviewed The Eternal Generation of the Son here and also Giles’ earlier work, he reviewed here
If you guys do discuss either of these books, Nick would be a great guest.
Jeff
I am aware that Giles connects discussion of the Trinity with gender roles and was not sure how the new book would go.
Thanks to Jeff for the Norelli review; it will become a permanent bookmark in my copy of the book.
Jeff D., you do realize that Norelli is both subordinationist (in a non-Arian sense) and an egalitarian, right?
Guys, let’s not lose sight of the purpose of the book and the episode. What ever arguments he makes to draw connections between the Trinity and gender roles, his argument for the the DEGS, as well as his plea for evangelicals to think historically about doctrine (and not to reject DEGS without an awareness of the extensive ancient literature and arguments for it) are all good and helpful.
Interesting episode. I have not studied both sides extensively, but I agree with DEGS view as far as I understand it….. (and I must say, some of the more advanced discussions of it do confuse me)
That said, I think you guys may have oversimplified the other side, at least in what I’ve listened to so far (about half of the show). I’m a bit surprised that in the first half, Mark Driscoll is mentioned numerous times, but not once Robert Reymond. To me, it is surprising that you would include Driscoll as a representative of the doctrine. I know he is prominent, but not necessarily a person to fairly put forward as a representetive.
Perhaps the references to Reymond are in the second half of the show? I will have to listen to the rest of the show when I get a chance.
I’ve heard some people say that Boettner and B. B. Warfield denied DEGS to some degree or at least were close to it. Is that true?
Again, please don’t confuse me with someone who is trying to call DEGS into question… I’m just
I loved this podcast. I appreciate Giles’ work as well, and was hoping to hear you guys mention the error of Eternal Subordinationism espoused by Grudem and others in the “evangelical” camp. Grudem and Ware, for instance, draw out the logical consequences of not being able to differentiate between the Three Persons of the Godhead apart from His economy of creation and redemption; however, as they reject the Scriptural teaching on the eternal generation of the Son, they say that the Persons of the Godhead are differentiated by their positions of authority. The Father is the Greatest; the Son is, well, not so much; and the Holy Spirit has the least authority, as He is subject to the Father and the Son.
Monergism (dot) com has a link to a debate between these two subordinationists and two orthodox Trinitarians from TEDS. Is there any hope you guys will touch on the erroneous views espoused by Grudem and Ware? It would be helpful to many in the “evangelical” camp who think the doctrine is what the church has historically taught.
Keep up the good work, brethren
-h.
It would be helpful to me if you would follow up on this episode with more specifics as to how each side of the gender debate is employing and defining the DEGS. Best I can tell, Ware and Grudem are endorsing eternal distinctions and properties in the members of the godhead, which during the program you all said they did not. There seems to be some sort of a difference made between Christ being generated in the very beginning, and thus being eternally from the Father (on the part of the complementarians) as opposed to the Son being generated on a continual ongoing basis–which would make him derivative and ontologically inferior (on the part of the egalitarians). This in spite of All of the complementarians that I can find stand behind the ontological co-equality of the Son in his essence. He is indeed “autotheos.” Reymond marshals such ancient names as Cyril, Augustine, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Ames, Voetius, along with modern names like B.B.Warfield, John Murray, and Charles Hodge. Add in Grudem, Ware, and Driscoll, and I have trouble seeing this as clear error. Obviously, it is a matter of two different interpretations of the received doctrine, not some recent innovation on the part of rogue “evangelicals.”
Are you all opposed to the eternal functional subordination of the Son, and if so, on what basis? The egalitarians are positing the notion that he was subordinate only during his earthly sojourn, which doesn’t pass the smell test to me, but I’d like to know more of the history of the debate. I have been taught all along for many, many years by Reformed profs and pastors and teachers that the eternal functional subordination of the Son was established orthodoxy. I have never looked into it that much. I would be more than glad for you to enlighten me.
This has definitely become a “political football” in the guise of theology. If you’re going to cover the subject, that needs to be addressed. At ETS this November, they’ll have a whole section devoted to Giles and to the “Trinity Statement” drawn up by the egalitarians.
Complementarians don’t need the evidence from the relationships within the Trinity to maintain their stance. Still, I would like more specifics as to why the complementarians should be accused of error before I throw them under the bus on this one.
The link to the debate spoken of by Hiram is the following:
http://www.henrycenter.org/media/?id=154&type=video
I’ll make my own decisions as to which side is more orthodox after I have finished watching (and researching).
(This is the first episode of any program by Reformed Forum where I felt you all as presenters were perhaps lacking in preparation. There is just so much more to this than you represented. I look forward to that being rectified. You all are great!! I absolutely adore this site…)
Sorry. Had a typo. The line that begins “This in spite of…” should have continued “…their stated intention of showing the equality of power and authority between the members of the Trinity (which would seem to dispose of the distinct properties of filiation and procession).”
The next line then begins “All of the complementarians….”
I got distracted and didn’t proofread properly. Sorry.
I watched the debate. A couple of points:
1. The egalitarians rejected the notion of eternal distinctions of properties in the members of the godhead, opting instead for there being three distinct bearers of identical properties. They claimed that to say otherwise was to accept a type of [Arian] subordinationism. The only distinctive of the Son according to them is “being the Son.” So it ends up being some sort of nominalism. Or, as the complementarians pointed out, a version of modalism. They also believe that Christ’s submission to the Father was relegated to the time of his Incarnation. Since that goes on after Jesus’ death, it would seem to make him schizophrenic in terms of submission in glory (if he only submits “according to his humanity”) although, to be fair, there would be no clash of wills. Still, the person of the glorified Christ, in spite of his return to equality, is spoken of as submissive in Revelation.
2. The complementarians endorsed eternal distinctions (which you all observed as characteristic of the orthodox view of eternal generation of the Son). They spoke of eternal generation positively, meaning I think, some sort of eternal Sonship with mysterious origin/mechanism. They have trouble with “begottenness” as the term “monogenes” in John 3:16 has evidently been shown to be more accurately translated as “one and only” or “unique.” (Or I would think, if correctly translated, it might refer only to Christ’s Incarnation.)
At any rate, at the very least, Christ had to accede to being sent, for he “did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” And this was before the Incarnation….
Gentleman,
I just wanted to say that it seems to me that the issues were not presented accurately on this issue, and I would like to suggest that you have a follow-up program with someone like Wayne Grudem on to present their side. As I understand those you were taking issue with, they (at least Wayne Grudem) are not denying that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, just that the idea of eternal generation is built on an incorrect understanding of the meaning of monogenes.
Let me just say that you usually cover the subject matter of your programs with the highest caliber of accuracy, but I think on this one there may need to be some adjustment. Let me also say that your podcast is my favorite one to listen to, and I thank you for your ministry.
Blessings!
Thanks for your support, Bruce. It should be noted that at no time did we say or suggest that those who deny the eternal generation of the Son deny that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. What we did do, however, was point out that without an eternal begetting the name “Son” is only a nominal title. So, while Grudem, et al would rightly affirm the eternal divinity and sonship of the logos, without the eternal generation there is no way in which he can properly be called “Son.”
I did get the impression from the program that you all believed that the eternal Father/Son relationship was being denied. Thank you Jim for the clarification. If I understand you correctly you are saying that there cannot by definition be a Father/Son relationship apart from the Father generating or begetting, and in view of the Son’s intrinsic Deity this is neccesarily a generating without a beginning from eternity. Is that right? I see what you are saying and I will want to think a bit about that.
One question I have is why there could not simply be an eternal Father/Son relationship within the essence of the Triune God just because that is how God eternally is in the glory and mystery of His being apart from an eternal generating of the Son? Does there neccesarily have to be a generating or begetting?
On another matter will the Reformed Forum be at the upcoming regional Reformed Theology conferences in Princeton and Quakertown?
On this topic of the eternal generation of the Son I wanted to alert you to a very good article defending eternal generation. The article is in Trinity Journal (Volume 32 NS, No. 2; Fall 2011) and is titled “Augustine, Eternal Generation, and Evangelical Trinitarianism” by Keith E. Johnson. Keith received his Ph.D. from Duke University in Christian Theology and Ethics. He is a guest professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and currently is the director of Theological Education for Campus Crusade for Christ. The essay shows how Augustine grounded both biblically and theologically the doctrine of eternal generation and why it is crucial to maintain the doctrine for trinitarian orthodoxy. The three main points of the article are the following: I. Evangelical Criticisms of Eternal Generation, II. Eternal Generation in Augustine’s Trinitarian Theology, and III. What Would Augustine Say To Evangelicals Who Reject Eternal Generation? This essay is a great starting place for understanding the current debate on eternal generation.