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.
by Sam Waldron | Aug 31, 2011 | Systematic Theology
The rumor has lingered in evangelical circles over the last couple of centuries that the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is “subordinationism.” One may hear this rumor already in the writings of Princeton’s B. B. Warfield and his opinion that the Nicene Creed contains remnants of subordinationism. It also comes out in Millard Erickson’s expressed fear that those who defend the eternal functional subordination of the Son are opening a path to Arianism for their spiritual descendants.
Any number of responses may be made to this rumor. The first is that the Nicene Creed affirms in the strongest possible ways the full and true deity of the Son. As we have seen, it affirms that the Son is “very God … being of one substance with the Father.”
The second is that this rumor misunderstands the nature and background of Ante-Nicene Subordinationism. This subordinationism was based on the Logos Speculation that arose within Greek Platonism. To make a long story short, the Logos Speculation was adopted and applied to Christian theology by Justin Martyr and Origen. It was based on the Greek doctrine of an utterly remote God or Supreme Being incapable of coming into contact with finite reality. In order to create and communicate with finite creation the Supreme Being brought forth a subordinate being called the Logos who was by definition and necessity less transcendent and remote from finite reality. Necessarily (in order to fulfill his philosophical function) this Logos possessed only a diluted or mediating form of deity.
When this philosophical construct was used to explain the Trinity, it had a number of evil results. One was the notion that the deity or being of the Son was less than the being of the Father. To put this another way, the Logos Speculation had everything to do with the hierarchy of being taught by Greek philosophy in which everything from the Supreme Being to the world was arranged on a scale of being. One’s place on the scale of being was determined by the level (or density) of being one possessed. Thus, for a Christian Platonist on the scale of being the Father was higher than the Son, the Son higher than the Spirit, the Spirit higher than the created world, men higher than women, and fauna higher than flora and both higher than rocks and dirt. Now this kind of Subordinationism is utterly absent from the Nicene Creed. It is the person of the Son that is generated by the Father. His deity is exactly the same as that of the Father’s.
The third problem with this rumor is that it leads and must lead to the conclusion that both Augustine and Calvin taught Subordinationism since both taught the eternal generation of the Son by the Father. Since even Egalitarians cite Augustine and Calvin as teaching a doctrine of the Trinity that fully equalizes the persons, the implication or notion that they were subordinationists is nonsense.
The fourth problem with this rumor is that it confuses two very different kinds of subordination. To put this another way, those who foster this rumor assume that there are only two kinds of subordination discussed in relation to the Trinity, when actually there are three. All Christians, including Erickson and the Egalitarians, believe that there is subordination in the economy of redemption. We may call this economic subordination. Their mistake is that they think there is only one other kind of subordination—subordination of essence or essential subordination. While they correctly see this kind of subordination to be wrong and false, they do not realize that this is not the kind of subordination implied in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed actually teaches a third kind of subordination. It is neither economic nor essential subordination. It is the subordination of the persons of the Son and Spirit to the Father. Since the Greek word used to describe a real, personal distinction in the Trinity is hypostasis, we may call this personal or hypostatic subordination. Personal or hypostatic subordination is entirely different than the essential subordination of the Logos Speculation or Logos Christology.
Furthermore, since this distinction between essence and person is vital to the Trinity, there should be no logical problem for any Trinitarian in denying a subordination of essence while affirming a subordination of person. It is a subordination of person and not essence that the modern defenders of the eternal functional subordination of the Son (like Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and John Piper) intend to teach. They are emphatically not guilty of the Subordinationism of Justin Martyr and Origen.
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 | Aug 24, 2011 | Systematic Theology
In my previous blogs posts I have cited a little of the biblical and historical evidence for the doctrine called the monarchy of the Father. This doctrine is clearly articulated in the first words of the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” But the real emphasis of the Nicene Creed makes explicit the monarchy of the Father by affirming the eternal generation of the Son. Here are the key words which state it in the second paragraph: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made…”
Perhaps the first order of business for contemporary Christians is to really understand the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. The simplest way to do this is to work through the above statement phrase by phrase.
The Lord Jesus Christ is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father.” This affirms that there is an organic relationship between God the Father and God the Son similar to that of an earthly father-son relationship. Of course, it is not that Scripture and the Nicene Creed borrow the human father-son relationship after the fact to illustrate this Trinitarian relationship. It is rather that the human father-son relationship was created to illustrate this divine relationship in the Trinity. As with all human analogies for the divine, there are limits beyond which this analogy must not be taken. I will mention one of them below. Yet the Nicene Creed stresses that this analogy holds with regard to the point of begotten-ness. The Son is “begotten” of the Father. This means that the person of the Son is somehow derived from the person of the Father and dependent upon it. It also means that this derivation and dependence is filial in character. Or to put it from the standpoint of the Father it is paternal in nature. It is not a bare derivation. Nor is it the same as the relationship of derivation and dependence sustained by the person of the Spirit to the Father and the Son through His eternal procession from Them. Eternal Procession does not create a Father-Son relationship. Eternal generation does.
The immediate objection which students of mine have made to this doctrine over the years is that it implies that the Son is not eternal. They have difficulty putting the concepts of derivation and eternity together. However we may further respond to this natural objection, it is clear that the Nicene Creed had no difficulty in putting these two concepts together. It does so explicitly in the words which follow those we have been discussing: “begotten of the Father before all worlds.” The intent of these words is to stress that the generation of the Son is not temporal (taking place in time), but eternal (taking place before all worlds—the ages of space-time existence.)
Another natural objection to the doctrine of eternal generation which occurs in the minds of many is that this doctrine must mean that the Lord Jesus is not truly, really, and in the highest sense God. The contemporary controversy with the Jehovah’s witnesses and other modern Arians has perhaps led some evangelicals to be suspicious of the historic doctrine of eternal generation. Again the very next words of the creed refute this suspicion. The Lord Jesus, it asserts, is “very God of very God.” Though eternally generated—in fact, for the authors of the Nicene Creed, because he is eternally generated—the Son of God is really and truly God. While this assertion may not fully express the later explicit assertion by Calvin of the “self-existence of the Son,” it certainly prepares the way for it. Sometimes the Nicene Creed has actually been accused of containing remnants of the Subordinationism of some forms of Ante-Nicene Trinitarianism. This remarkable assertion (which implies that Athanasius and his fellows were Subordinationists) is refuted by this phrase.
Eternal generation is also sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Son is created. But this is exactly and precisely what the doctrine does not mean. Because of His eternal generation, and diametrically opposed to the Arian doctrine, the Lord Jesus is “begotten not made.”
The phrase, “being of one substance with the Father,” is probably the most important phrase in the entire creed. It contains the key Greek word, homoousias, which affirms that that the Son possesses the very same being as the Father. This word was at the center of the controversy with the Arians and the Semi-Arians in the fourth century. Against them it affirms that the Son is not merely like (homoios) the Father, nor merely like-essenced (homoiousias) to the Father, but that the Son has the same essence as the Father. It is nonsense to say that the Nicene Creed is guilty of the Subordinationism associated with the Logos Christology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries in light of this assertion.
But the Creed ends this important section by once more affirming that this eternal relationship lies behind the historical relationship of the persons of the Trinity. Because He is the eternally begotten Son of God, it is through or by Him that the Father made the world: “by whom all things were made…” The eternal Son of God is the instrument and means by which God the Father made everything (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). He is, thus, subordinate to the Father in the act of creation.
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 | Aug 3, 2011 | Systematic Theology
In my previous blog I have expressed my suspicion that many evangelicals—if they were honest—are not really convinced of the first paragraph of the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” How can God the Creed in some distinct sense identify the Father as the “One God”? My previous blog brought forward two of the many places in which the Bible itself identifies the Father as “the God” (John 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Of course, there are many other such places in the Bible. Consider John 17:1-3: “Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
We may be troubled by passages that identify the Father as “the one true God.” Historic Trinitarianism was not. This was because it understood the doctrine sometimes called the monarchy of the Father. While each of the persons of the Trinity possess the entire divine essence and are from their standpoint of their essence self-existent, the same thing is not true for the persons of the Trinity. Each person is eternal but in Nicene Trinitarianism the persons of the Son and Spirit originate from the Father. Thus, later in the Creed it is affirmed that both the persons of the Son and Spirit eternally come from or are derived from the person of the Father. Of the Son it is affirmed that He is “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father.” Of the Spirit it is affirmed that He “proceedeth from the Father.” This Nicene doctrine is sometimes called the monarchy of the Father. The term, monarchy, has a meaning which is a little foreign to us. It is Greek and is derived from two words: monos = one or sole and archei = origin or ruler. The Father is one origin of the persons of the Trinity. Thus, the unity of Godhead has a twofold basis. It is grounded both in the unity of the divine essence and in the eternal derivation of the other divine persons from the Father.
If all this seems strange and “Eastern,” it should not. It was the doctrine of Calvin himself. In the midst of his critique of Erickson’s sub-Nicene Trinitarianism, Wellum makes this point:
“In a similar way, Erickson is not helpful in his discussion of Calvin. He argues that Calvin does ‘speak of the distinctions between the three persons of the Trinity’ (162). He even admits that in Calvin ‘there is a type of order’ (162) but then simply reduces this order for Calvin to a ‘logical or psychological order’ (162) thus implying that Calvin would have accepted the equivalence view that all references to an ordering among the persons is only economic and temporary. But this is not correct. The same Calvin who denies any subordination when it comes to the three persons sharing the divine nature, also affirms, along with the Patristic Fathers that there are distinct, eternal relations between the persons so much so that Calvin regarded the Father as the (beginning) or origo, that from him is the Son, and from both is the Spirit-in respect to the persons and not the nature (see Institutes 1.13.18-20). Calvin’s view is precisely what the equivalence view does not affirm. Furthermore, Erickson concludes from his historical survey that ‘it is difficult to contend that throughout its history the church has taught the eternal functional subordination of the Son (and the Spirit) to the Father’ (167).”
Just as Calvin is often cited by Egalitarians, so also is Augustine. But just as Calvin affirms the monarchy of the Father, so also does Augustine. Here is a gem from Keith Johnson’s article on Augustine’s Trinitarianism:
“Although he affirms that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Augustine offers an important qualification. He notes that John 15:26 does not say, ‘whom the Father will send from me,’ but rather ‘whom I will send from the Father.’ By this, Christ ‘indicated that the source (principium) of all godhead (divinitatis), or if you prefer it, of all deity (deitatis), is the Father. So the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son is traced back, on both counts, to him of whom the Son is born’ (De trin. V.29, 174). Thus, although Augustine clearly speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one substance, he also affirms that the source and origin of deity (principium deitatis) is the Father.”
Calvin and Augustine are often cited by Egalitarians as exemplars of Western Trinitarianism and exponents of a more Egalitarian view of the Trinity. There may be differences between Western and Eastern Trinitarians. I think there are. But one of those differences is not that they reject the Nicene doctrine of the monarchy of the Father. If we are uncomfortable with this doctrine, it is we who have the problem and not the Nicene Creed!
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.
