Posts: 706
Joined: May 2016
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,378
Posts56,578
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
#56489
Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:05 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14
Plebeian
|
OP
Plebeian
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14 |
Hi Pilgrim, I would appreciate your help in how to answer this teaching from one of our Sunday School teachers which my husband and I believe to be in error. He bases his rejection of the doctrine of eternal generation on his belief that the Nicene Creed is heretical. Here is what he wrote to my husband regarding his bizarre view that the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity had a human nature before the foundation of the world. I wanted to follow up on my comments in church last Sunday regarding the Lord’s assumption of a human nature. After reading part of Owen’s essay on the Lord’s priesthood, I could see that I did not teach what Owen was teaching and thereby assumed that I had taught error, as I mentioned. However, I have read a lot more from him this week, and now understand what he taught. And, I believe that he was wrong. By that, I mean, that he took all of the verses relating to the Lord’s taking of humanity, and applied them to eternal generation. For instance, in Hebrews 1:2, where Scripture says “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds,” Owen says that refers to the eternally generated Second Person of the Godhead, not the God Man Jesus Christ. In that essay, Owen took a multitude of verses that apply to the glory of the Lord Jesus and taught that they applied only to the Second Person, apart from His Humanity. I cannot accept the teaching that the Second and Third Persons of the Godhead were created. As God said, “I change not,” I do not believe He changed from being One Person to Three Persons. I believe that Scripture is clear that God is perpetually Triune. He did not become Triune.
So, after reading his essay and understanding his teaching, he caused me to understand that what I taught in Sunday School was mostly correct. Verses like Col. 1:15-16 and Hebrews 1:2 must refer to one of two things, either eternal generation or Christ’s assumption of humanity. And, if Christ was not eternally generated, then according to those verses, His assumption of His Human Nature occurred before the foundation of the world. There are a multitude of verses that teach this. But, I just picked these two out of the list of verses that Owen used.
My error was in teaching that the Lord was Head over the human race at the point of creation. That definitely is wrong. If He had been head over humanity, then all humanity would have been saved because He died for all of His people. Owen made me realize this error.
Concerning the timing of the Lord’s assumption of a Human Nature, I am still seeking guidance. But, it seems clear that He did so before the foundation of the world, according to Col. 1:15-16 (by Him all things were created.) Also, the eternal covenant demands His presence as God Man (Gal. 3:20). He had to have already been Human in order to stand as Mediator between the Father and His people in the eternal covenant with the Father.
The major point that I am unclear on is His relationship to those who are lost. My thinking, though it is currently unclear, is that God the Father was the Father of Adam. The Lord Jesus is Head and Father over the “new man” (Eph. 2:15). Therefore, the Lord Jesus adopted into His family those who were previously of the Father’s family, but had fallen into condemnation. It seems that the fulness of the adoption happened immediately after the fall, though the adoption was foreordained before the foundation of the world. His assumption of humanity had to have happened prior to the incarnation. Otherwise, Old Testament saints were adopted into a family with no Head and no Life. The body that the elect are made members of is Christ’s, and Christ is the source of life for each member (John 1:4). Therefore, Christ must have been the Head of the new creation prior to the salvation of the first person, Eve.
I would appreciate your comments and critique of those thoughts. I would like to get this straight in my head, to insure that I teach correctly going forward. It is unlikely to come up in a text in the near future. But, I would really like to get my theology right on the Glory of Christ.
Last edited by Susan; Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286 |
 Well...... lot's of deductive reasoning, and I use the term "reasoning" loosely. Rather taking time to try and deal with the several questionable things that this Sunday School teacher wrote, methinks I would rather just state what I believe and what the overwhelming majority of believers have believed from the study of Scripture throughout many centuries. 1. There is one GOD who consists of 3 persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Nicean and Athanasian Creeds are biblically sound. 2. The Son of God BECAME flesh at a determined and specific time in human history. (John 1:1-14) Notice that the "Word", the 2nd Person of the Trinity, aka: The SON created all things. And it was the SON of GOD who took upon Himself human flesh who was given the name "Jesus" (Matt 1:21). Note carefully, that the preceding verses of verse 21 give the genealogy, the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth. Notice also Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given". The child was not eternally generated. 3. The word "Christ" is not the last name of Jesus. It is a title; Messiah. Not recognizing this often brings more confusion. 4. In the New Testament, there are many places which refer to the eternal Son of God... and there other places that refer to the human Jesus... and there other places which refer to the God man as one who is deity and human. (cf. The Chalcedonian Creed It is at times difficult to determine which of the three is to be understood. But there is no definitive clear text which states that the incarnate God the Son was eternal. 5. God's decree(s) are eternal, but the fulfillment of those decree(s) are in time. It is error to believe that the fulfillment is eternal, e.g., "Eternal Justification". Again, more to the specific issue of the eternality of Jesus the incarnate Son of God, Paul wrote: Galatians 4:3-7 (ASV) 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Sorry for the brevity of my response. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. 
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14
Plebeian
|
OP
Plebeian
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14 |
Thank you for your response. Could you please elaborate on soundness of the Nicene creed which he believes teaches the following:
" I cannot accept the teaching that the Second and Third Persons of the Godhead were created. As God said, “I change not,” I do not believe He changed from being One Person to Three Persons. I believe that Scripture is clear that God is perpetually Triune. He did not become Triune."
Additionally, he says that the original form of the doctrine of eternal generation differs from... "The version of eternal generation that you quoted [Berkhof] is the weakened form of the doctrine that has been passed down for the past couple hundred years. It has taken much of the offense of the doctrine out. However, that is not the doctrine in its true form. The two men that I have read who had the best understanding of the doctrine [and he rejects their views] are R L Dabney and Jonathan Edwards. Tomorrow afternoon, I will try to locate Dabney’s discussion of the doctrine and give you his exact words, so that you won’t think that I am distorting his teaching.... But, in short, the doctrine of eternal generation teaches that God, in eternity past, was only One Person. His Essence, they say, has remained unchanged. But, the Father eternally begat the Son, and the Holy Spirit spirated from the Father and the Son. Therefore both the Son and the Spirit are not self existent, they received their existence as Persons, but not their Essence. Therefore, according to eternal generation, God is not perpetually Triune, He became Triune."
Thanks again for your kind attention.
Last edited by Susan; Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286 |
I have not read in Berkhof, Dabney nor Edwards that the Trinity was anything but eternal in the three persons. The only denial of that doctrine have been heretics such as Arius, et al, and the modern cults. And, my understanding of the Nicean Creed is the same; One God consisting of three persons who share all the same attributes including eternality and aseity. The problem seems to be with this teacher's comprehension of the Creed and the three persons he mentions of whom he claims teach that the Son and Spirit were "created", which clearly is not taught in the Creed nor by any of those mentioned.  Perhaps he has not studied the history that led to the formulation of the Athanasian and Nicene creeds?  The Nicene Creed used carefully selected verbiage to counter the views of Arius who denied the deity of Jesus and thus stated that the Son (and Spirit) were created. Arius used the term "Homoiousios" to describe the "Son/Jesus", i.e., was of a similar, but not identical, essence (or substance) with God the Father. The Nicene Creed countered that heresy by using the word "Homoousios" (notice the omission of the "i") which means of the very same essence, substance, being as the Father. Since the Son is of the same being, He shares ALL of the attributes of which God consists, not excluding eternality. Perhaps the following Theopedia article might help? ADDENDUM: Eternal Generation of the Son
Last edited by Pilgrim; Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:48 PM. Reason: Added a link to an article
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14
Plebeian
|
OP
Plebeian
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14 |
Thanks so much for your thoughtful responses. He sent some objections he has to some things that Dabney and Edwards wrote about this highlighting his objections in two long articles which I will try to post excerpts from tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14
Plebeian
|
OP
Plebeian
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 14 |
Pilgrim, Upon reading the article that you added, we find that to be most helpful in addressing the issues in question. Thank you! The quotes from Edwards and Dabney are the very excerpts that the teacher objected to.
We'll forward the article to him and see what he thinks,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,048 Likes: 286 |
There are times that someone reads what someone else has written on a subject and misunderstands what they wrote. And upon that misunderstanding they voice an objection and strongly disagree. Now, I do NOT think that Jonathan Edwards nor Robert L. Dabney are infallible. But I do know personally, that those men's writings are not the easiest to comprehend.... know what I mean?  Now, with the possibility that this teacher isn't understanding what he read (I suspect he is more influenced in his opinion by the critics of either/both of those men which are floating around the Web), there is still the serious issue in his rejection of the Nicene Creed and perhaps the Athanasian Creed as well. Orthodox Christianity (not referring to Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox) has overwhelmingly gave a thumbs up to those creeds as being biblically sound. And personally, my reading of those creeds, agrees with that conclusion.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,340
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|