Giles in his book “The Eternal Generation of the Son” picks this up in pages 181-182, 186-87, 189, and 197.

Beza would go back to the traditional view.

Horton observes:
Theodore Beza believed that generation equals communication of essence (see Muller PRRD, 4:258-59). In other words, if the Father communicates the person, then he communicates the essence. ‘The Son,’ Beza said, ‘is of the Father by an ineffable communication from eternity of the whole nature.’ (Christian Faith pg 290 at the footnote).

One can hold to a communication of essence and autotheos:

John Howe an English Puritan who served as a Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell claims the “Divine Nature communicated to him (as he is Filius the Son) by eternal generation, and in regard of that Divine Nature he may in some sense by called autotheos, i.e. God of himself.” (Page 97 Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life).

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?

Jeff D., you do realize that Norelli is both subordinationist (in a non-Arian sense) and an egalitarian, right?

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 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!

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….

The next line then begins “All of the complementarians….”

I got distracted and didn’t proofread properly. Sorry.

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…)

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.

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 apologize for the error. I’ve updated the link.

Thanks to Jeff for the Norelli review; it will become a permanent bookmark in my copy of the book.

Jeff

I am aware that Giles connects discussion of the Trinity with gender roles and was not sure how the new book would go.

Curtis

We discussed the book on eternal generation.

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.

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