by Sam Waldron | Sep 28, 2011 | Systematic Theology
Those who oppose the doctrine of eternal generation also oppose the idea that the persons of the Trinity have in eternity distinct personal characteristics and roles. They teach, therefore, that the economy of redemption is arbitrary and reveals nothing about the identity and roles of the persons of the Trinity in eternity. Some add that the economy of redemption is simply an arbitrary, covenantal arrangement which might have been very different. The person we call the Son might have sent the person we call the Spirit to die on the cross, and both of them might have sent the person we call the Father to apply the work of redemption.
In contrast to this, historic Trinitarianism has taught that there was propriety in the roles assumed by the persons of the Trinity in the economy of redemption. Significantly supporting this view is the fact that the order of the economy of creation is precisely the same as the order of the economy of redemption. Redemption not only occurs from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, Creation is also from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Last time we saw this order in John 1:1-3. John’s reading of Genesis 1 is that the Father creates the world through His Word and that the Spirit (brooding on the face of the deep) brings this creation to perfection. There are many texts that straightforwardly affirm this order of creation as being from the Father through the Son.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him.
It is very significant, then, that the economy of creation is the same as that of redemption. It seems to me, however, that the significance of this economy of creation goes even further. When the Trinity springs out of eternity and into time through the work of creation, the order is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The reason is that this is the order embedded in the eternal Trinity itself. Creation does not change this order. It only reveals in the order of creation an order that existed in the Trinity itself. The only alternative to this is the notion that the order of the Trinity in time reveals nothing about the order of the Trinity in eternity. Even laying aside all the evidence against this which we have already seen, this notion is in itself unacceptable. The whole purpose of creation and redemption is the manifestation of the glory of God. To deny the revelatory character of the order of creation and redemption with regard to the Trinity is opposed to the whole over-riding rationale of God’s creating and redeeming purpose.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 21, 2011 | Systematic Theology
The opponents of eternal sonship may convince themselves that they have refuted it by offering several plausible reasons why Christ is called the Son of God before His incarnation which do not require that He is eternally generated by the Father. The problem with their argumentation is that it entirely forgets or neglects many related aspects of the biblical data. One such piece of data is the other name given to the Son of God before the creation of the world. According to John 1:1-3 before the creation of the world He is the Word of God.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Notice several things about this famous and pivotal assertion of the Apostle of John. First, it clearly affirms the full deity of Christ. Not withstanding all the evasions of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others, the clear meaning of the third clause of verse 1 in this context is that the Word is as to His substance, nature, or being God.
Second, in the first two clauses of verse 1 two persons are distinguished. While in the third clause no definite article precedes God, the definite articles are used with the noun, Word, and the noun, God, in the first two clauses: So one person is “the Word” and the other person is called “the God.” This clearly means that “the Word” is the Word of “the God.” These names clearly suggest the derivative character of the person of “the Word” and the primacy of the person called “the God” in this context. To put this in more familiar terms, the Son is described as the eternal Word of the Father.
Third, an intimate personal relationship is ascribed to the two persons in the second clause of verse one. The Greek preposition pros is used in the clause that is translated “and the Word was with God.” Pros has for its root meaning, toward. Thus, it might be translated and “the Word was toward the God.” This already suggests the idea of a personal relationship. We are not, therefore, surprised to find that the use of pros with the accusative (which is what we have here) has for one of its uses (according to the Greek lexicon) the “denoting of a friendly relationship.” “The Word” was oriented toward “the God” in a loving personal relationship.
Fourth, the Word is, then, associated with the Father in the work of creation. The Bible begins with the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” John, thus, affirms that at that period in the beginning—at the creation of the world—“He was in the beginning with God.” Verse 3, therefore, goes on to assert that the Father created the world (everything that was created) through the Son: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” This clearly implies two things. First, it affirms that the Son is Himself not created, because everything that came into being came into being through Him. Second, it affirms that He was the subordinate means of creation. The Father made all things, but He made all things “through” His Son. John is thinking of the statement of in Genesis 1:3, “And God said.” God created the world through His Word and that Word has become incarnate in Jesus Christ. The preposition, dia, used here denotes means, agency, or instrumentality. The Son was the instrument or means or agent though which the Father made the world. His eternal, subordinate, personal relationship to the Father as His Word comes to expression in the work of creation as He is the subordinate means of creation.
The eternal Wordship of Christ plainly implies His eternal Sonship and the role of eternal, personal subordination to the will of the Father that He gladly fulfills.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTSeminary | Sep 16, 2011 | Sacraments, Systematic Theology
Dr. Bob Gonzales, Academic Dean and a professor at Reformed Baptist Seminary as well as an Adjunct Professor of Old Testament Studies here at MCTS has posted an article defending Believer Baptism (Credobaptism) against Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) on his new blog: “Why I’m Still a Baptist.”
(He is also teaching Old Testament Introduction I this fall at the Midwest Center. To learn more about his class, feel free to click here.)
I highly recommend reading his article while studying John 1:12-13. I find his case both exegetical and persuasive. As he concludes:
The question is one of divinely bestowed legal warrant (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God’s New Covenant family is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper. It is, rather, a new state of affairs from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, the church and her leadership are no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant de jure the privilege of New Covenant member status.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 14, 2011 | Systematic Theology
Another important evidence of eternal generation is the eternal sonship of Christ. The Scriptures clearly teach that the Christ was the Son of God before He came into the world and when He came into the world (John 3:16, 3:17; 10:36; Romans 1:3, 4; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:9, 10, 14). Son is also the name chosen by the author of the Hebrews to designate the Son when He is speaking of His divine glory (Hebrews 1:2, 5, 8; 5:8; 7:3, 28). So that the point is not missed, a few of these references deserve a closer look.
John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
John 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God ‘?
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law
1 John 4:9-14 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins….We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Each of these texts naturally imply that when He was sent into the world and before He was sent into the world, He was already the Son of God.
Several responses are made to these texts. The first is that these texts are proleptic and call Christ the Son of God only in anticipation of what He would become in His incarnation. In conjunction with this certain texts are cited that are said to imply that he became God’s Son by means of historical events. Here are the texts they often cite.
Psalm 2:7 I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Romans 1:3-4 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord
Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?
Psalm 2:7 does, indeed, associate the sonship of Christ with His enthronement, but this has in view the way in which He becomes the King of Israel as the Son of David and on the basis of the Davidic Covenant. It does not deny that in another, greater, and eternal sense He was the Son of God.
When Hebrews 1:5 cites Psalm 2:7 it actually combines it with a quote from the Davidic Covenant found in 2 Samuel 7:14. Remarkably, however, and in a way that is a little surprising to us, the author of Hebrews sees this Sonship as reflecting the divine glory of the Christ. This use of the text by the author of Hebrews actually suggests that the historical sonship of the Christ reflects and incarnates an eternal sonship.
Luke 1:35 associates the sonship of Christ with His virgin birth. This cannot mean, however, that the virgin birth is the only reason He is called the Son of God. For one thing, we know that He is also called the Son of God (according to Psalm 2:7) because of His resurrection and enthronement. A look at the Greek of Luke 1:35 suggests the possibility that Luke only means that this is another reason why He will be called the Son of God.
Romans 1:3-4 illustrates the way in which the historical sonship incarnates an eternal sonship. It clearly says that it was the Son of God who was born of the seed of David. It is likely that the word translated declared in the NASB actually should be translated appointed (its more common meaning). Yet the point is not merely that He was appointed the Son of God, but that He was appointed the Son of God with power by His resurrection from the dead. Understood this way, this passage teaches that the resurrection actually bestowed on the one who was already the Son of God the power to be the Savior of Sinners—the Savior Son of God!
The evidence is so clear that Christ is called the Son of God prior to His incarnation and resurrection that some frankly admit this. They, however, empty eternal sonship of much of its significance by the notion that this sonship only asserts the equality of nature between the Son and the Father. It is, of course, true that it does imply this as John 5:18 suggests when it says that He called “God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” What is not so clear is that this is all that being God’s eternal Son implies. In what other contexts would anyone conceive the really peculiar notion that sonship means only equality of nature?
The conclusive answer to both of the above responses to eternal sonship will be given in future blogs as the other biblical evidence for eternal generation is reviewed.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 7, 2011 | Systematic Theology
The most obvious evidence for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is the biblical assertions that (1) the Son is begotten of the Father and (2) He is the only begotten Son of God. In the modern era difficulties have been raised with both these apparent supports for eternal generation.
As to # 1, let me say this. Psalm 2:7 asserts, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'” This verse is quoted a number of times in the New Testament (Acts 13:3; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). Modern scholarship has noted that this language speaks of the enthronement of the Son of David as the King of Israel and is applied in the New Testament to the resurrection of Christ. It has concluded from this that there is no reference in it to a so-called eternal generation of the Son. While I am of the opinion that the historical sonship of Christ actually is intended to reflect and incarnate His eternal sonship, I grant that these verses are not clear proofs by themselves of eternal generation.
As to # 2, I believe this argument is capable of solid support. The word frequently translated “only begotten” in the Bible is the Greek word monogeneis. Until the modern era it was assumed that this word was derived from two words, “only” and “begotten,” and meant “only begotten.” This derivation and meaning has been challenged by modern scholarship. It derives the word from “only” and “kind” and affirms that the word means one of a kind or unique with no connotation of having been begotten. Thus, the ESV translates monogeneis simply as “only” in the major passages where it is used of God’s Son. Though the ESV is really popular right now, I must confess that its adoption of the modern explanation of monogeneis makes me really unhappy. This is not because I am certain that the old derivation and translation of the word as only begotten is certainly correct. I think a good case can be made that it is! And so does Lee Irons and John Frame! But my unhappiness is rooted in the fact that I am quite confident that “only” is a really lame and inadequate translation of the word. Here’s why.
(1) Monogeneis is used 23 times in the LXX and NT. In 19 of those occurrences the idea of begetting is clearly suggested by the context. It is used with son, daughter, and father. The other four occurrences are figurative and cannot be normative for the meaning of the word. The translation of the word merely as unique or only entirely loses the filial relationship it suggests. The word is never used and would never be used of an only uncle, aunt, brother, or sister, because it implies a unique relationship with one’s father.
(2) In one important occurrence the idea of derivation is immediately associated with monogeneis. John 1:14 asserts: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
(3) In the Nicene Creed the Greek fathers (who probably understood their Greek even better than modern scholars) associate monogeneis with and explain it by begetting: the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made. Here monogeneis is translated only-begotten and then explained as involving being begotten and derived from the Father. It is hard to resist the notion that the Greek fathers understood monogeneis to mean only begotten and not merely only or unique. God’s Son is not merely unique. He is only begotten!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
