Reconciling "begotten" and "eternally"

[Martinius]

A few days ago I read something that triggered a question about the terms "begotten" and "eternally".

My question is: How could Christ be eternal yet at the same time "begotten of the Father"? That phrase seems to indicate that the Father existed first, since God the Father had to exist for Christ to be "begotten".

First I checked out the creeds. In the Nicene Creed we find that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father" and a few lines later it is re-emphasized that Christ is "begotten, not made".

In the Chalcedon Creed similar language is used, saying that Christ was "begotten before all ages of the Father".

The Athanasian Creed says: "The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten".

I also noted that the Apostles Creed, probably the earliest creed, does not contain the terms "eternally" or "begotten" when speaking of Christ (I did find one version that had "begotten" in it).

Next I looked up the word begotten (actually beget). I found it to mean "procreate", to "generate offspring", or to "cause or produce an effect". All of these indicate the necessity of someone or something to exist prior to the "begetting". Or to look at it another way, if Christ existed eternally than He could not have been begotten of God the Father.

So I pulled out my Catholic Catechism, figuring that in there would certainly be an explanation. I found the Catechism uses the Apostles Creed, discussing it in great detail, but it did not cover the terminology of "eternally begotten". So no help there.

I even checked the Baltimore Catechism. Nothing there either, but in the"Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism" I finally struck gold. In the discussion under Question # 23, "How many persons are there in God?" it says this:

We call the first and second persons Father and Son, because the second is begotten by the first person, and not to indicate that there is any difference in their age. We always see in the world that a father is older than his son, so we get the idea perhaps that it is the same in the Holy Trinity. But it is not so. God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost existed from all eternity, and one did not exist before the other. God the Son is just as old as God the Father, and this is another great mystery. Even in nature we see that two things may begin to exist at the same time, and yet one be the cause of the other. You know that fire is the cause of heat; and yet the heat and the fire begin at the same time. Though we cannot understand this mystery of the Father and Son, we must believe it on the authority of God, who teaches it. First, second, and third person in the Blessed Trinity does not mean, therefore, that one person was before the other, or brought into existence by the other.

Finally, I found something that attempted to answer my question. But what I come away with is that this Father/Son combo is a "mystery" that we cannot understand. And it still says that the second person of the Trinity is "begotten by the first person", yet neither existed before the other. And then we have to add the Holy Spirit to the mix, who "proceeds from the father" (and the son as well, depending on who you ask).

Going back to my question, it seems the difficulty is in the usage and meaning of words like "begotten" and "proceeds from". Are there better words we could use to describe the relationship of the Trinity? And how can we use the word "eternal" to describe each "person" of the Trinity while stating that the second is begotten of the first and the third proceeds from the other two? Why do we even try to describe how the Son and the Holy Spirit are derived from the Father, when we also say that they are all one and the same God?

Any enlightenment about this would be appreciated. And if this question has already been discussed in other threads, I apologize and ask that you refer me to those threads. Thanks.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

A few days ago I read something that triggered a question about the terms "begotten" and "eternally".

My question is: How could Christ be eternal yet at the same time "begotten of the Father"? That phrase seems to indicate that the Father existed first, since God the Father had to exist for Christ to be "begotten".

First I checked out the creeds. In the Nicene Creed we find that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father" and a few lines later it is re-emphasized that Christ is "begotten, not made".

In the Chalcedon Creed similar language is used, saying that Christ was "begotten before all ages of the Father".

The Athanasian Creed says: "The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten".

You have actually hit on exactly the point of dispute between the Arians and St. Athanasius. Arius contended that the whole concept of begetting implied that there was a time when the Father was but the Son was not, and that the Son came into existence subsequent to the Father.

Athansius, in his Orations Against the Arians (which I highly recommend reading, although beware of their tone- they are filled with spiteful polemic), contended that "begotten" and "eternal" are not in contradiction if we think of begottenness as being something related to the shared substance of two persons. That is why the Nicene Creed included the phrase "being of one substance with the Father" or "one being with the Father" or "one essence with the Father," all translations of "homoousious with the Father."

For Athanasius and the orthodox party that emerged victorious in the early church, the relationship between Father and Son is not one of time, but of shared substance. A Son shares his substance with the Father and the substance of the Son is derived from, or grounded in, the substance of the Father. But the derivative or grounded nature of the Son's substance does not imply that there was a time when the Son was not, when the Son did not exist.

I also noted that the Apostles Creed, probably the earliest creed, does not contain the terms "eternally" or "begotten" when speaking of Christ (I did find one version that had "begotten" in it).

The Apostles' Creed is not the earliest creed. The earliest creed we know of is the Old Roman Creed, which looks very similar, but there are some very important differences in their composition history: namely, that the Old Roman Creed defined Christianity in a way that excluded pagans and Jews; the so-called Apostles' Creed defined Christianity in such a way that could include both orthodox and Arian Christians. Very likely, the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed were written in the same historical circumstance: the conversion of the Arian Visigoths to orthodox Nicene Christianity. However, with some many Arians left in the kingdom (which was in present day Spain), it was unsure whether Arians should be tolerated. The Apostles' Creed was a way of dumbing down the Nicene Creed in order to allow Arians to participate; the Athanasian Creed was a way of ramping up the Nicene Creed in order to definitely exclude them.

The issue at stake here is not some technicality of theology. The issue is whether Jesus Christ is the Creator or a creature. Is he on the Creator side of that great divide, or is he the first of created beings? Of course, according to his human nature, he a creature; but according to the nature that become incarnate through the flesh from the Virgin Mary, is he the Creator, or a created spiritual being like the angels?

 

[Martinius]

You have actually hit on exactly the point of dispute between the Arians and St. Athanasius. Arius contended that the whole concept of begetting implied that there was a time when the Father was but the Son was not, and that the Son came into existence subsequent to the Father.

Athansius, in his Orations Against the Arians (which I highly recommend reading, although beware of their tone- they are filled with spiteful polemic), contended that "begotten" and "eternal" are not in contradiction if we think of begottenness as being something related to the shared substance of two persons. That is why the Nicene Creed included the phrase "being of one substance with the Father" or "one being with the Father" or "one essence with the Father," all translations of "homoousious with the Father."

Thanks for the great explanation. This latter part makes sense, seeing God the Father and Christ as of the same substance or essence. And then the "eternal" aspect fits with that. But when you consider the standard meaning of "begotten" it really seems to confuse our understanding. That is why I asked about the use of that word. It is like the church added this "extra" terminology to better define what should be considered orthodox thinking, but in doing so made it impossible to reconcile these terms with one another. Hence, we have a "mystery", which seems to be a mystery only because some early church fathers couldn't come up with a better way of stating it.

The issue at stake here is not some technicality of theology. The issue is whether Jesus Christ is the Creator or a creature. Is he on the Creator side of that great divide, or is he the first of created beings? Of course, according to his human nature, he a creature; but according to the nature that become incarnate through the flesh from the Virgin Mary, is he the Creator, or a created spiritual being like the angels?

If the Father and the Son are truly One, then your question above is answered. But from what you describe in your post the early church did not agree on this. Only one Gospel seems to side with Athanasius about the eternal aspect; the others are ambiguous at best.

And you have left out the Holy Spirit. If all three are really one, then how could the Holy Spirit "proceed from" unless the first (or first and second) persons of the Trinity existed prior to that point? If, as the quote from the Baltimore Catechism says, the entire Trinity "existed from all eternity", why do we use terminology that implies a totally different meaning than is intended? Why do we even bother to say that one or the other "proceeds from" or is "begotten"? It is like the early church fathers really didn't know how to address this, so they used contradictory words and labeled it all a mystery to mask their own confusion.

And I am disappointed that in the teaching tool of the Catholic Church, its detailed Catechism, they seem to purposely avoid any substantive discussion of this question. It is like the Christian churches ignore the obvious dichotomies in their creeds and teachings and hope no one will notice.

 

[God's Word]

It is like the Christian churches ignore the obvious dichotomies in their creeds and teachings and hope no one will notice.

What you said...

I was recently discussing this very thing on this forum...especially in relation to how the term "begotten" is actually applied in relation to Christ in scripture. Since my scriptural understanding contradicts certain aspects of the Nicene Creed, I am not allowed to discuss it in this section of the forum, but only in the Unorthodox Theology section of the forum. I'm really swamped with work right now (and will be for about another week), but, if you'd like me to, then I'd be willing to start a thread on this very topic in the Unorthodox Theology section of the forum when I have the time to do so and I can always notify you of the thread at that time. Should this transpire, then I think that I could offer actual scriptural answers to your questions and not just push things off as "a mystery" as many throughout church history have done. Please let me know if you would be interested in such a thread/discussion or not. Thanks.

 

[Jpark]

I was under the impression that begotten was synonymous for established.

the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.

You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning...

But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

From the time God's will was implemented, when God set in motion the way things would turn out. That is the beginning.

 

[Verticordious]

With this kind of question you're getting into discussion of the trinity. In my opinion, all of these terms, father, son, spirit, begotten, etc, are, for lack of a bettor word, metaphors. I see the different "persons" of the trinity be comparable to a man who is a father to his son at home, a boss to his son at work, and an elder to his son at church. All three "persons" are the same man, but he is "expressed" in different roles in different situations. Likewise, there is only one God, who is "expressed" in three different roles.

So, as far as the Son goes, he is still God, obviously. The Son simply refers to the role God played as a man. Jesus is a "son" of God in the sense that we all are, that we have human bodies created by God. Unlike us, however, Jesus is God, so he is called the begotten son, and not just a son. No analogy is perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy it'd be the actual thing. You're taking the analogy out of context by asking questions like "if Jesus is the begotten son of God, how can he be eternal?". The analogy is simply meant to establish that Jesus is unique among all the other humans that have been born. Jesus has always been part of God's family, because he is God (duh), so he's like a begotten son, but we aren't born part of God's family, we only later become part of it, so we're like adopted sons. If you try to take the term literally, that Jesus is the son of God in the exact same sense that you are the son of your father, then you would contradict the rest of scripture.

 

[Melethiel]

With this kind of question you're getting into discussion of the trinity. In my opinion, all of these terms, father, son, spirit, begotten, etc, are, for lack of a bettor word, metaphors. I see the different "persons" of the trinity be comparable to a man who is a father to his son at home, a boss to his son at work, and an elder to his son at church. All three "persons" are the same man, but he is "expressed" in different roles in different situations. Likewise, there is only one God, who is "expressed" in three different roles.

So, as far as the Son goes, he is still God, obviously. The Son simply refers to the role God played as a man. Jesus is a "son" of God in the sense that we all are, that we have human bodies created by God. Unlike us, however, Jesus is God, so he is called the begotten son, and not just a son. No analogy is perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy it'd be the actual thing. You're taking the analogy out of context by asking questions like "if Jesus is the begotten son of God, how can he be eternal?". The analogy is simply meant to establish that Jesus is unique among all the other humans that have been born. Jesus has always been part of God's family, because he is God (duh), so he's like a begotten son, but we aren't born part of God's family, we only later become part of it, so we're like adopted sons. If you try to take the term literally, that Jesus is the son of God in the exact same sense that you are the son of your father, then you would contradict the rest of scripture.

No, that's Modalism, a heresy. The Trinity is expressly NOT simply God putting on different hats.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But when you consider the standard meaning of "begotten" it really seems to confuse our understanding. That is why I asked about the use of that word. It is like the church added this "extra" terminology to better define what should be considered orthodox thinking, but in doing so made it impossible to reconcile these terms with one another. Hence, we have a "mystery", which seems to be a mystery only because some early church fathers couldn't come up with a better way of stating it.

I think part of the reason for the confusion comes from the New Testament texts themselves. The New Testament uses the term "begotten" both to refer to the temporal begottenness of Jesus from the flesh of the Virgin Mary, and the begetting of the Second Person of the Trinity from the First Person. In fact, among the Orthodox, there is a tradition (I don't know how universal it is) of celebrating the eternal generation of the Son from the Father on Christmas. The historical fact reveals a second transcendental reality.

I also think that "generation" may be a better translation of the Greek, especially when it comes to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Think, quite literally, of an electrical generator. When the generator is on, there is no temporal relationship of the generator to the electricity generated. The relationship is a logical one of cause-and-effect. I don't want to reduce the reality of the Father's generation of the Son to mere cause-and-effect, because there is also the issue of the sharing of substance. It does serve, however, to show that there are other forms of generative relationship than ones in time.

If the Father and the Son are truly One, then your question above is answered. But from what you describe in your post the early church did not agree on this. Only one Gospel seems to side with Athanasius about the eternal aspect; the others are ambiguous at best.

I must disagree with you on both points. The early church was forced to debate the point because Arius could not accept all of the following truths: that Jesus had always been worshiped as God since the very beginning of Christianity; that Christians should only worship God; that God the Father and God the Son are distinct from each other, such that the Father did not suffer on the cross nor are the Father and Son and Spirit three manifestations of one being (Arius, in fact, was reacting to a family of earlier heresies known as modalism). He could not hold those truths together has the church always had when he thought through them fully; Sts. Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius, along with many others, however, were able to muster the intellectual rigor to defend the historic practice of the church. It is actually a good example of how church practice set the limits and boundaries of theology, rather than vice versa.

Also, while the synoptic gospels are not as express about the deity of Christ as John, the Gospel of Mark, in particular, shares a concern with John over the identity of Jesus Christ. The big difference is that where John tells you, the reader, who Christ is at the beginning of the narrative and uses the rest of the story to flush out the implications, Mark poses the question at the beginning of the narrative and frames his telling of the Jesus story like a detective story that isn't brought to completion until the Centurion makes his confession of faith at the cross.

And you have left out the Holy Spirit. If all three are really one, then how could the Holy Spirit "proceed from" unless the first (or first and second) persons of the Trinity existed prior to that point? If, as the quote from the Baltimore Catechism says, the entire Trinity "existed from all eternity", why do we use terminology that implies a totally different meaning than is intended? Why do we even bother to say that one or the other "proceeds from" or is "begotten"? It is like the early church fathers really didn't know how to address this, so they used contradictory words and labeled it all a mystery to mask their own confusion.

This is actually one where the East and West diverged on how to answer the question. Augustine framed his answer this way: the Father is One-Who-Loves, the Son, who is the perfect self-image of the Father, is the Beloved, and the Spirit is the personification of the Love itself that is shared between them. Thus, the Son is begotten of the Father (generated like a beloved child) and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Spirit (proceeds like the breath requires to sing a love song).

The Eastern fathers, particularly the Cappadocians, desired to preserve the primacy of the Father within the Trinity. Thus the difference between the Son and the Spirit is not that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son, but simply that generation and procession are two different sorts of relationship that define two other equally eternal but distinct persons.

The fact is that while there was debate and confusion, much of it resulted from the poor translations from Latin to Greek and vice versa. But all orthodox theologians who fought for the historic practice of the church by developing new fields in theology agree that there is only one God, but three (and only three) eternal Persons who are equal in majesty and always exist as separate persons; yet one God. Read the Athanasian Creed through a few times and you'll start to see the inner logic of it.

And I am disappointed that in the teaching tool of the Catholic Church, its detailed Catechism, they seem to purposely avoid any substantive discussion of this question. It is like the Christian churches ignore the obvious dichotomies in their creeds and teachings and hope no one will notice.

The creeds and catechisms of various churches are not meant to be definite statements of theology. They are meant to define the boundaries of debate. Thus saying that the Son is eternal, begotten of the Father, and homoousious with the Father is just the starting point for a much fuller search into the heart of God. That intellectual quest is just one more expression of our love for God, and we cannot hope to search out the infinite in this finite life. That's fine; but don't be disappointed with the creeds and the catechisms. Just move on from there to actually read the writings of the patristics (although I'd recommend a modern textbook first: Christian Theology: An Introduction and the companion volume The Christian Theology Reader, written and edited by Alister McGrath, are great places to start; after that, the books on the Trinity and Christology by Gerald O'Collins are good next steps).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks for the great explanation. This latter part makes sense, seeing God the Father and Christ as of the same substance or essence. And then the "eternal" aspect fits with that. But when you consider the standard meaning of "begotten" it really seems to confuse our understanding. That is why I asked about the use of that word. It is like the church added this "extra" terminology to better define what should be considered orthodox thinking, but in doing so made it impossible to reconcile these terms with one another. Hence, we have a "mystery", which seems to be a mystery only because some early church fathers couldn't come up with a better way of stating it.



If the Father and the Son are truly One, then your question above is answered. But from what you describe in your post the early church did not agree on this. Only one Gospel seems to side with Athanasius about the eternal aspect; the others are ambiguous at best.

And you have left out the Holy Spirit. If all three are really one, then how could the Holy Spirit "proceed from" unless the first (or first and second) persons of the Trinity existed prior to that point? If, as the quote from the Baltimore Catechism says, the entire Trinity "existed from all eternity", why do we use terminology that implies a totally different meaning than is intended? Why do we even bother to say that one or the other "proceeds from" or is "begotten"? It is like the early church fathers really didn't know how to address this, so they used contradictory words and labeled it all a mystery to mask their own confusion.

And I am disappointed that in the teaching tool of the Catholic Church, its detailed Catechism, they seem to purposely avoid any substantive discussion of this question. It is like the Christian churches ignore the obvious dichotomies in their creeds and teachings and hope no one will notice.

With this kind of question you're getting into discussion of the trinity. In my opinion, all of these terms, father, son, spirit, begotten, etc, are, for lack of a bettor word, metaphors. I see the different "persons" of the trinity be comparable to a man who is a father to his son at home, a boss to his son at work, and an elder to his son at church. All three "persons" are the same man, but he is "expressed" in different roles in different situations. Likewise, there is only one God, who is "expressed" in three different roles.

So, as far as the Son goes, he is still God, obviously. The Son simply refers to the role God played as a man. Jesus is a "son" of God in the sense that we all are, that we have human bodies created by God. Unlike us, however, Jesus is God, so he is called the begotten son, and not just a son. No analogy is perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy it'd be the actual thing. You're taking the analogy out of context by asking questions like "if Jesus is the begotten son of God, how can he be eternal?". The analogy is simply meant to establish that Jesus is unique among all the other humans that have been born. Jesus has always been part of God's family, because he is God (duh), so he's like a begotten son, but we aren't born part of God's family, we only later become part of it, so we're like adopted sons. If you try to take the term literally, that Jesus is the son of God in the exact same sense that you are the son of your father, then you would contradict the rest of scripture.

This is modalism. It is one of the earliest heresies of the church to say that the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three persons, but three roles that God plays.

 

[Fotina]

St Cyril of Jerusalem, early church father, explained in detail.

Catechetical Lecture 11

On the Words, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father Very God Before All Ages, by Whom All Things Were Made.

part 14 of 24

14. We believe then In the Only-Begotten Son of God, Who Was Begotten of the Father Very God. For the True God begets not a false god, as we have said, nor did He deliberate and afterwards beget ; but He begot eternally, and much more swiftly than our words or thoughts: for we speaking in time, consume time; but in the case of the Divine Power, the generation is timeless. And as I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence into being, nor take the non-existent into sonship : but the Father, being Eternal, eternally and ineffably begot One Only Son, who has no brother. Nor are there two first principles; but the Father is the head of the Son 1 Corinthians 11:3; the beginning is One. For the Father begot the Son Very God, called Emmanuel; and Emmanuel being interpreted is, God with us Matthew 1:23 .



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

 

[Martinius]

What you said...

I was recently discussing this very thing on this forum...especially in relation to how the term "begotten" is actually applied in relation to Christ in scripture. Since my scriptural understanding contradicts certain aspects of the Nicene Creed, I am not allowed to discuss it in this section of the forum, but only in the Unorthodox Theology section of the forum. I'm really swamped with work right now (and will be for about another week), but, if you'd like me to, then I'd be willing to start a thread on this very topic in the Unorthodox Theology section of the forum when I have the time to do so and I can always notify you of the thread at that time. Should this transpire, then I think that I could offer actual scriptural answers to your questions and not just push things off as "a mystery" as many throughout church history have done. Please let me know if you would be interested in such a thread/discussion or not. Thanks.

I had thought about starting this thread in Unorthodox Theology, but I saw it more as a question about the choice, meaning and (possibly) translation of the terms originally used to explain or describe the idea than about arguing for or against the concept of the Trinity. But it is obvious that when considering this one must also take into account the varied positions that existed in the early church, and that the "final" definition, while not really making any sense, was the best a committee could come up with that the majority could agree with. In other words, a little something for eveyone, except perhaps for the Arian Christians.

We are saying that Christ is "begotten" of the Father yet eternal, and then saying "please ignore obvious contradiction in those terms".

 

[Martinius]

This is modalism. It is one of the earliest heresies of the church to say that the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three persons, but three roles that God plays.

I am not sure whether you are saying that both of the posts you quoted are supporting modalism. Mine was a continuation of my earlier post looking for an understanding for the use of the words "begotten" and "proceeds from" in the creeds. Rather than just declaring something a heresy, I was hoping for a discussion and deeper explanation of why these terms are used. I have noted from my research that the earliest creeds, such as the Apostles Creed, did not use this wording, and that the creed was revised several times as disagreements about the Trinity and and the nature of Christ arose. Although the matter was apparently settled some 1700 years ago, it seems that we cling to the use of words that seem to mean the opposite of what is intended. To accomodate that contradiction we create some torturous explanations, when to me it would be better to update the terminology to make it say what we mean.

Here are the pertinent portions of the Apostles Creed, just to illustrate what it says (and more importantly, what it doesn't say).

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit...I believe in the Holy Spirit...

No "begetting" or "proceeding"; that detail and the confusion came later, with the later creeds.

The early church was forced to debate the point because Arius could not accept all of the following truths: that Jesus had always been worshiped as God since the very beginning of Christianity; that Christians should only worship God; that God the Father and God the Son are distinct from each other, such that the Father did not suffer on the cross nor are the Father and Son and Spirit three manifestations of one being (Arius, in fact, was reacting to a family of earlier heresies known as modalism). He could not hold those truths together has the church always had when he thought through them fully; Sts. Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius, along with many others, however, were able to muster the intellectual rigor to defend the historic practice of the church. It is actually a good example of how church practice set the limits and boundaries of theology, rather than vice versa.

It is not quite accurate to focus on just one person here, Arius. I find that this matter was not settled for many years and until several councils were held, and that there were many Bishops and church fathers in agreement with the view of Arius. And it is not really correct to say that the Athanasius and others were defending "the historic practice of the church". There doesn't appear to be any "historic practice" or clear doctrinal belief since it wasn't yet developed. We can see the development beginning in the writings of the Gospels and Epistles, but as you say there is no clear position at that point. It really appears that it wasn't even an issue, as the concept of the Trinity was not yet fully formed (that did not occur until three centuries after the events described in the Gospels, and led to the creed we use today).

Church practice was certainly not uniform either, as you should well know. Really, it wasn't uniformity in church practice that led to theology, but differences in church practices and beliefs that led to defining what was orthodox theology and what wasn't. It certainly seems that "theology" was not the prime focus of Christianity for a long time; at the beginning the focus was on preparing for the return of Christ and what people had to do to be among the saved.

(quoting St. Cyril) "...nor did He deliberate and afterwards beget ; but He begot eternally, and much more swiftly than our words or thoughts: for we speaking in time, consume time; but in the case of the Divine Power, the generation is timeless. And as I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non-existence into being, nor take the non-existent into sonship : but the Father, being Eternal, eternally and ineffably begot One Only Son."

Cyril too tries to have it both ways. God is swift, but being really swift does not equate with timeless. Again, it would have been better, in my mind, if Cyril had left out the "begot" and just said that Christ is "eternally One with the Father."

If you would survey a cross section of Christians about the meaning of "eternally begotten", a great number (perhaps a majority) would probably say it means that God the Father "begot" Christ a really long time ago. And that is my point; what some say "eternally begotten" SHOULD mean may not be how most people understand it.

So are they heretics too? Or just confused victims of bad grammar?

 

[ivebeenshown]

"Begotten" and "proceeding" are merely words used to convey the eternal bond of unity between the three persons of the Trinity. We should not use them in our explanation of the Trinity as if they mean the same thing as mortal begetting or proceeding, but rather as pseudo-extensions of the names "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit."

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I am not sure whether you are saying that both of the posts you quoted are supporting modalism.

I was not responding to you. My apologies for the confusion. I also did not mean to shut that person down by making it clear that their position was the ancient heresy known as modalism (which was condemned both by the Arians and the Nicene party), but to make people aware of the fact that their view is not the view of Nicene Christianity.

Here are the pertinent portions of the Apostles Creed, just to illustrate what it says (and more importantly, what it doesn't say).

No "begetting" or "proceeding"; that detail and the confusion came later, with the later creeds.

As I already explained, the Apostles' Creed is not earlier. The Old Roman Creed is, but the purpose of the Old Roman Creed was to exclude pagans from the baptismal rite, whereas the purpose of the Visigothic "Apostles'" Creed was to include both Arians and Catholics.

It is not quite accurate to focus on just one person here, Arius. I find that this matter was not settled for many years and until several councils were held, and that there were many Bishops and church fathers in agreement with the view of Arius.

The historical focus has always been on Arius because he was the chief proponent of the view that the Son is not God together with the Father, but was the first of all created beings. Your original question, regarding the meaning of words in the Nicene Creed, must touch on Arius because that wording was put in there specifically to condemn his position. Of course Arius was part of a broader theological movement, but the issue at hand- the wording and meaning of the Nicene Symbol- is specifically the issue of Arius' different interpretation of "eternal" and "begotten." You cannot discuss one without reference to the other.

And it is not really correct to say that the Athanasius and others were defending "the historic practice of the church". There doesn't appear to be any "historic practice" or clear doctrinal belief since it wasn't yet developed. We can see the development beginning in the writings of the Gospels and Epistles, but as you say there is no clear position at that point. It really appears that it wasn't even an issue, as the concept of the Trinity was not yet fully formed (that did not occur until three centuries after the events described in the Gospels, and led to the creed we use today).

Church practice was certainly not uniform either, as you should well know. Really, it wasn't uniformity in church practice that led to theology, but differences in church practices and beliefs that led to defining what was orthodox theology and what wasn't. It certainly seems that "theology" was not the prime focus of Christianity for a long time; at the beginning the focus was on preparing for the return of Christ and what people had to do to be among the saved.

Certainly there was more theological and liturgical variety in the early church than the forms of belief and practice that were codified at Nicea and in the subsequent councils. And of course there was theological development.

However, my point was that everyone at the council came from churches in which Jesus had been worshiped as God as long as anyone could remember. The excellent work on apostolic christology by Larry Hurtado is just one good example of a whole field of contemporary christological studies confirming what everyone, Arius included, at Nicea knew.

My point was not that this was necessarily true everywhere (the Ebionites, for example, were a divergent faction in the early church that probably did not worship Jesus as God), but that Arius, in his sincere desire to show that he was orthodox (his whole point, after all, was to combat modalism, a belief everyone agreed was heretical), conceded that Jesus had always been worshiped as God in the church. If you actually read his own writings and the writings of later Arians, you can see that they are all willing to concede that from the perspective of worship, they were willing to call Jesus "God" because they accepted this universal practice of the non-gnostic, non-modalistic, non-Montanist church (i.e., the Catholic Church, as far as both Arius and his opponents were concerned).

Now, this goes back to my original point: both Arius and his opponents, particularly Hilary of Poitiers and Alexander of Alexandria (Athanasius would only write after Arius' death against later Arians who had at that point received imperial patronage because Arianism was a particularly attractive to justify supreme earthy authority- more on that later if it comes up) agreed on a certain existing framework of praxis within which they defined their theology. This does not mean this was always the case in every place, but it does mean that when it comes to understanding the meaning of 'eternal,' 'generated,' and 'homoousious' within the context of the Arian-Nicene controversy, we are working within an agreed-upon framework that is monotheistic, anti-modalist, and worships Jesus of Nazareth as God.

Cyril too tries to have it both ways. God is swift, but being really swift does not equate with timeless. Again, it would have been better, in my mind, if Cyril had left out the "begot" and just said that Christ is "eternally One with the Father."

By Cyril's time (active 412-444), after the Council of Constantinople in 381, the formulate "eternally begotten of the Father" was universally agreed upon and a basic criteria for having full civil rights and liberties within the empire. The Arians were at that point largely confined to Gothic populations moving westward across northern Europe, having been converted by Wulfila, and Arian bishop supported by the Arian emperors of the mid-fourth century. Cyril lived in a time in which Augustine in the west and the Cappadocian fathers in the east had made it very clear what they meant by "eternally begotten of the Father" (and they agreed on this point).

If you would survey a cross section of Christians about the meaning of "eternally begotten", a great number (perhaps a majority) would probably say it means that God the Father "begot" Christ a really long time ago. And that is my point; what some say "eternally begotten" SHOULD mean may not be how most people understand it.

So are they heretics too? Or just confused victims of bad grammar?

To be a heretic is to expressly deny the truths expressed in the ecumenical creeds, so while I would identify people's beliefs as modalist or Arian, I would not accuse them of heresy unless they publicly denied what the church catholic has professed, in accordance with the Scriptures, since antiquity.

 

[Martinius]

"Begotten" and "proceeding" are merely words used to convey the eternal bond of unity between the three persons of the Trinity. We should not use them in our explanation of the Trinity as if they mean the same thing as mortal begetting or proceeding, but rather as pseudo-extensions of the names "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit."

So my question has been, and still is, why do we use these confusing terms?

 

[ivebeenshown]

So my question has been, and still is, why do we use these confusing terms?

The three persons differ only in relation to one another. They are descriptions of the relationships between the three persons, which the Church agreed upon.

 

[Martinius]

The three persons differ only in relation to one another. They are descriptions of the relationships between the three persons, which the Church agreed upon.

I understand that, but why not change the wording so it is not contradictory? Perhaps the usage of these terms was clear in the 4th century, at least in a theological sense, but they make no sense today. Instead we continue to use words that mean one thing to most people, but then claim they really don't mean that. I don't call that a mystery; I call that obfuscation. Perhaps this terminology was needed 17 centuries ago, when it might have been necessary to clearly delineate orthodox belief from the non-orthodox, but is that still necessary today? And was it really something "agreed upon" or was it instead a compromise, done to avoid a major schism? That is what it appears to be.

Simply put, when I read that part of the creed, I ask how anything can be eternal yet "begotten". It could make one wonder if those who wrote this really had any idea what they were talking about. Again, it sounds like something that came from a committee whose members had to compromise and include ideas from both sides, to make most everyone happy that at least their own point of view was included, even if it didn't mesh well with other points of view that were also added to the final version.

Perhaps the problem is that it WAS theology by committee.

 

[God's Word]

Martinius:

I did just start a thread entitled "When was Jesus begotten?" in the Unorthodox Theology section of this forum. If you would like to read my comments and possibly participate in the thread, then you can do so here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7605535/#post58947139

Thanks.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Simply put, when I read that part of the creed, I ask how anything can be eternal yet "begotten".

How can anyone eternally be a "Son"? It's the same thing.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
Now, this goes back to my original point: both Arius and his opponents, particularly Hilary of Poitiers and Alexander of Alexandria (Athanasius would only write after Arius' death against later Arians who had at that point received imperial patronage because Arianism was a particularly attractive to justify supreme earthy authority- more on that later if it comes up) agreed on a certain existing framework of praxis within which they defined their theology. This does not mean this was always the case in every place, but it does mean that when it comes to understanding the meaning of 'eternal,' 'generated,' and 'homoousious' within the context of the Arian-Nicene controversy, we are working within an agreed-upon framework that is monotheistic, anti-modalist, and worships Jesus of Nazareth as God.
-snip-

FYI, to further understand Arius' position, it helps to know his doctrine arose out from a tradition that began with Theodotus of Byzantium c190ad.

" Hippolytus stated that Theodotus was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ in time of persecution—a fact which accounted for his heresy, since he could thus maintain that he had only denied man, not God. "
Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

For more, google adoptionism (Arius, Lucien of Antioch, Paul of Samasoto, Theodotus of Byzantium).

Adoptionism tries to tie 'begotten' at Jesus' baptism as Christ, rather than eternally begotten.