Proceed vs. Beget

Polycarp1 said:

As with many other theological concepts, the use of anthropomorphic metaphor is required to translate the ineffable heavenly, eternal concepts into language the human mind can grasp. Discussing the quiddity of God vis-à-vis the contingency of created things has two main effects: (a) put most of the listeners to sleep, and (b) convince the rest of the insufferable egotism of the speaker. On the other hand, saying that God is Reality itself and all other things are real because He made them, comes across as more meaningful. We speak of God as though He were a man written large, not to confuse Creator with created, but because human beings are our sole experience with thinking, volitional beings. We compare what He does to the sorts of things that we do in order that we may get some sort of a handle, however partial, on His nature and purposes.

That said, the interrelationships of the Persons of the Trinity are of necessity metaphorically described in anthropomorphic terms, because we don't have words to talk about eternal uncreated beings.

For us, saddled with Western cultural concepts, the use of "beget" to describe the relationship of Father and Son seems somehow taclky, steeped in the language of sexual reproduction. But for the Jews and Greeks, it was the perfect analogy. A craftsman makes many things, all of them of different nature than himself -- he crafts them, he is their creator. But he begets a son of the same nature as himself, who works with him as he grows up to help make the creations his father makes. Likewise, the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, not made as a creation of different sort, but of the same nature and participating in creation alongside the Father.

The Spirit, on the other hand, is understood differently. The Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma all indifferently mean "spirit", "breath", and "wind." And the essential metaphor for the Spirit is that he is exhaled over creation as the breath of life, the wind present everywhere. He is sent out by the Father at the behest of the Son (see John 14) -- and how you understand this is the differentiation between East and West in the use of the filioque.

Some Church Father probably said it clearer and more cogently. But that's ho I understand it.

Click to expand...

Willtor said:

What is the difference between proceeding from and being begotten of in the context of the Trinity? Are these simply terms that are useful in the context of the analogies we have for the divine Persons and their relationships to One Another?

I hate to ask a question that makes me sound ignorant, but I don't understand. Further, is there a Church Father who discusses this?

Click to expand...

tansy said:

On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from....ah, but, doesn't He proceed from the Son, who proceeds from teh Father? So that doesnt really make sense.....It's sure got me beat! LOL

Click to expand...

Tangible said:

John 20:21-22
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

This sure looks like the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son to me.

Click to expand...

Willtor said:

That's my contention. Does "beget" indicate something about the Son that is not true about the Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

Tangible said:

John 20:21-22
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

This sure looks like the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son to me.

Click to expand...