Thesis
Application
Events
About us
home page forums

Eternal Sonship

Introduction. The doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ is not a plain teaching of Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible will you find this phrase used. That Jesus is the Son of God is plain teaching indeed, as the Father Himself declared at Jesus' baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration, "This is my beloved Son." However, that the Son of God was (and is) eternal is not a plain teaching of the Bible. The difficulty of this doctrine arises not with Jesus' sonship but with His eternal nature.

"Eternal sonship" is a self-contradiction. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Luke 1:35 states it as follows (see ccbiblestudy.org), "The doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons:"

  1. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
  2. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.
  3. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
  4. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
  5. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.

You will note that here (and later in his commentary) Adam Clarke accepts and defends the eternality of Christ while at the same time rejecting his Sonship. Thus, in order to preserve Christ's deity he had to oppose the Arian view of His Sonship—i.e. that the Son had a beginning. In Adam Clarke's own words, the doctrine of eternal Sonship is "an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism."

Eternal generation. The doctrine of "eternal generation" of the Son, along with "eternal procession" of the Holy Spirit, are fundamental tenets in the doctrine of the Trinity. Given that neither the Son or the Spirit are created beings, trinitarian theologians came up with the term "procession" in order to describe the manner in which the Son and the Spirit are from the Father. There are two processions, one of the Son and one of the Spirit. The procession of the Son from the Father is called the eternal generation of the Son. [1] [Further study needed on "eternal procession." What is Filioque?]

"The [trinitarian] phrase 'eternal generation' is simply an attempt to describe the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity and, by using the word 'eternal,' protect it from any idea of inequality or temporality" (Basic Theology, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p. 54).

The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets the Son of God in such a way that the substance of God is not divided. Or, said succinctly, "The Father eternally generates the Son, and the Son is eternally generated by the Father." By using the qualifier "eternal" it removes this relationship from the constraints of time and space—i.e. there was no beginning, nor will there be an end to this generation of the Son from the Father. In order to guard this doctrine of eternal generation from any gross anthropomorphic conceptions it is carefully maintained that this doctrine is: [2]

  1. αχρονος - timeless, eternal
  2. ασωματως - not bodily, spiritual
  3. αορατος - invisible
  4. αχωριστως - not a local transference, a communication not without but within the Godhead
  5. απαθως - without passion or change
  6. παντελως ακαταληπτος - altogether incomprehensible.
Basically, the doctrine of eternal generation is put forward as a solution to the self-contradictory problem of the eternal Sonship doctrine. When all else fails, theologians will mystify a speculative idea, call it a doctrine, and declare it as incomprehensible so no one will question it! Note that this eternal generation doctrine is one of the core elements of the trinitarian doctrine embraced by all pro-Nicene theologians. Yet, it is:
  1. Unbiblical. The phrase is not found in Scripture, nor can it be concretely derived from Scripture. It is unbiblical and speculative.
  2. Pagan in origin. In the 2nd and 3rd century Greek apologists sought to bridge the gap between Christian and pagan thought. One of the ways they did this was by combining the biblical language of the Logos (λογος) with Greek connotations connected with the same word. The Logos was understood as referring to God’s reason which proceeded from Him and was instrumental in the work of creation. This understanding was passed on to the West through Irenaeus and became part of the theological toolbox which was used by the Nicene theologians as they grappled with Arianism in the centuries that followed. Thus, the doctrine of eternal generation is a philosophical intrusion into Christian theology and not a teaching which is drawn from the Bible itself. (Reference: Is the Son Eternally Begotten?)
  3. Incomprehensible. It is admitted by trinitarians that this doctrine is incomprehensible. Note: The incomprehensibility of God is a major theme in Augustine’s theology. See themelios.

Even John Calvin, a French theologian and Protestant reformer, although he believed in the Trinity, had reservations regarding the doctrine of eternal generation when he said, "For what is the point in disputing whether the Father always begets? Indeed, it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity" (Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.29). In the end, Calvin adopts a partial acceptance of this doctrine in which the Son has always existed in essence but is continually begotten in person (Reference: Philip Djung, Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity: An Assessment of the Eternal Generation of the Son). Just as Adam Clarke, Calvin accepts and defends the eternality of the Son (i.e. his essence) but not His Sonship (i.e. the Arian view of "Sonship").

The eternal generation concept is embedded in most trinitarian creeds, confessions or statements of belief. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith reads as follows:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." (WCF II.3)

The above is an attempt at having one's cake and eating it too. The Son is begotten (i.e. born with a beginning) and eternal all at the same time—i.e. "eternally begotten." So which is it: Is the Son begotten (with a beginning) or eternal (without a beginning)? The trinitarian answer is "yes," then when asked to explain this self-contradictory concept, he calls it a "procession" and an incomprehensible mystery; end of discussion.

Derived theological terms. The doctrines of eternal Sonship and eternal generation lead to other theological constructs, including:

  • Subordinationism. The view that the Son and Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. In other words, this view maintains that, within the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father. Trinitarians view this teaching as heretical.
  • Ontological Trinity. That the three Persons of the Trinity are equal and underived in terms of the nature of being.
  • Economic (or Social) Trinity. That in the Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The term often used is role playing or taking on titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the purpose of redemption.
  • Ontological subordinationism. This teaching is rejected by trinitarians given the belief that the three Persons are equal and underived.
  • Voluntarism. The false teaching that the truth concerning God is only what He wills it to be. Accordingly, the voluntarist tendency denies that what God reveals concerning himself has any necessary relation to what God is as God. In contrast, we are told that God cannot lie, because he is incapable of denying himself.

The unbegotten, begotten Son. You must understand that a trinitarian is both ontologically and economically (or socially) trinitarian (see above definitions). That is, he believes in a Triune God of three equal and underived Persons [ontological Trinity], while at the same time these three Persons play the roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit [economic (or social) Trinity]. The pre-incarnate Son is a Son in title only (i.e. for "salvific" purposes), but not in reality, as He is equal and underived just as the Father and Holy Spirit are equal and underived; otherwise, the Son could not be God. Thus, in spite of the gobbledygook which is the eternal generation doctrine, the Son is in reality "unbegotten," at least in the human sense of "begottenness."

  • To a trinitarian the term "begotten" speaks of "uniqueness" but not of "being brought forth" in an offspring/filial sense. He denies the ontological reality of Christ's Sonship.
  • Also, to a trinitarian the term "eternity" means "without beginning" and, therefore, Christ could not be a literal son, because a literal son has a beginning.

The reference to Sonship is therefore a metaphor, and the begotten Son is in fact, unbegotten.

The Unitarian non-eternal begotten Son. In contrast, unitarians deny Christ's eternality by the fact of being a begotten Son (having a beginning). This makes "eternal" and "begotten" imcompatible and/or mutually exclusive terms when speaking of Christ's nature or personality.

Citations

  1. The Bulwark of Trinitarian Theology. The trinitarian perspective on eternal generation. See also: Why Eternal Generation Matters
  2. What is the eternal generation of the Son?

The Early Adventist "Arian" perspective on Sonship

We now turn to the "Arian" perspective relating to Sonship which the pioneer Adventists espoused. This view is summarized below and discussed in detail in what follows. In no particular order:

  • The Son was begotten before Creation. That is, the Son was begotten before angels, other worlds, mankind, etc. were created.
  • The Son was begotten before Time. Adventist pioneers understood Time to be outside of Eternity. Thus, the Son was begotten in Eternity.
  • The Son is of the same substance as the Father. By virtue of the Son being begotten, He is of the same substance as the Father. And, since the substance of the Father is eternal and divine by definition, the Son must also have eternal and divine attributes.
  • The Son came forth from the Father. Analogous to the creation of Eve. She came forth from Adam. And, since the two persons (Adam and Eve) can be called "Man" (Genesis 5:2), so the Two Persons (the Father and Son) can be called "Divinity" (i.e. theotes, see What does "Godhead" mean?).
Before creation. To pioneer Adventists, Christ was begotten before the creation of all things. The Son of God is "of the substance of the Father," but with a beginning (of personality). He was the First-born of heaven, called the "Son of God" even before Lucifer rebelled and before He became the Son of Mary. (Read the blog Christ Jesus: Eternal Yet Begotten where this is discussed.)
  • Ellen G. White, ST May 30, 1895, par. 3: A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person.
  • E.J. Waggoner, SITI April 8, 1889, page 201.41: that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since that is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Colossians 1:19.
  • E.J. Waggoner, SITI April 8, 1889, page 201.42: Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ’s statement in John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I,” with the idea that he is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ’s divinity; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in Christ’s own speech, for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that he is divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ’s statement recorded in John 14:28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ’s personality had a beginning.

Note Waggoner's statements, "He is of the substance of the Father" and "While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ’s personality had a beginning." According to EGW, Christ's personality did not begin with His incarnation in the flesh.

  • 9LtMs, Lt 77, 1894, par. 9: God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, liable to physical infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are. He was the Son of the living God. His personality did not begin with His incarnation in the flesh.
  • 20LtMs, Ms 116, 1905, par. 19: The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality. He has wrought out the righteousness that enables human beings to overcome every assault of Satan. He will impute His righteousness to the believing saint who walks as He walked when on earth.

Divine substance. To better understand the concept of the phrase, "substance of the Father," as used by E.J. Waggoner, we must consider the term "divine substance." The Father being eternal and divine is of a substance which is eternal and divine by definition. Then the Son, being begotten of the Father would possess this same eternal and divine substance since a begotten is always of the same substance (or nature or kind) as that of the begetter. Thus, if the Father is eternal and divine, then the Son is eternal and divine by virtue of being begotten.

  • "When a person creates something, they make something other than themselves; i.e a sculptor makes a statue. But if that sculptor begets something, it will be another person of the same kind as himself; the nature of the one who is begotten is of the same nature as the one who begets him. Similarly, When God creates something, the nature of His creation is finite and of a different order of existence than God. But unlike God’s creation, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, bears the very nature as the Father Himself and therefore eternal and divine." —Christ Jesus: Eternal Yet Begotten

This idea of oneness of substance (between the Father and Son) in Waggoner's writings is also found in EGW's writings:

  • ST November 27, 1893, par. 5: With what firmness and power he uttered these words. The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him. Jesus looked upon them calmly and unshrinkingly, and said, “Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?”
  • 6LtMs, Lt 36a, 1890, par. 11: God's love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lays hold of divinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, a divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father's glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man.

Note that the Adventists pioneers (post-EGW) had similar views. The following are three examples:

  • TDOC 20.6 (W. W. Prescott, The Doctrine of Christ: A Series of Bible Studies for Use in Colleges and Seminaries, page 20, 1920): The Son is equal to the Father in everything except that which is conveyed by the terms Father and Son. He is equal to the Father in that he shares to the full the Father’s existence from eternity and his infinite power and wisdom and love. But inasmuch as the Father possesses these divine attributes from himself alone, whereas the Son possesses them as derived from the Father, in this real sense and in this sense only, the Father is greater than the Son.
  • W. T. Knox Bible Conference 1919, pg. 64 (archived and highlighted here): From God's viewpoint Levi had existed in the loins of his forefathers from the very beginning of time, but he did not have a separate existence until he was born. [A]nd so Christ was with the Father, and of the Father—from eternity and there came a time—in a way, we cannot comprehend nor the time that we cannot comprehend, when by God's mysterious operation the Son sprung from the bosom of his Father and had a separate existence.
  • C. P. Bollman, Bible Conference 1919 (archived and highlighted here): My conception of the matter is this; that at some point in eternity the Father separated a portion of Himself to be the Son. As far as the substance is concerned, He is just as eternal as the Father, but did not have an eternal separate existence.

Adam and Eve are types of the Father and Son. The creation of Adam and Eve may serve as an illustration. Adam was created first then Eve (Genesis 2:18, 20). Adam was alone for a short period of time and then Eve was created from the same substance as Adam—i.e. from a rib from Adam's side. It can be said that Eve is of the same nature and substance as Adam and is—essentially—the same age as Adam. Furthermore, no one can say that Eve is ontologically inferior to Adam, given she is of the same nature and substance. Interestingly, Adam is the name of both the male, Adam, and male and female Adam (Genesis 5:2, "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created").

Eternity past—before time began. The idea of eternity past ("before time began") and eternity future ("after time ceases") is an EGW and early pioneer concept as well. For example,

  • Ed 304.3: Then will be opened before him the course of the great conflict that had its birth before time began, and that ends only when time shall cease.

And as expressed by Adventist pioneers in her day:

  • A.T. Jones, SITI March 25, 1886, page 186.1: IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” “In the beginning,” that is, before creation, before time was; for in his prayer at the last supper he said: “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold the glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:5, 24. How long before, no finite mind can measure; for in the announcement by the prophet of the place of his birth, when he came into the world, it is said: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. The margin reads, Hebrew, from “the days of eternity.” The mind must be able to grasp eternity before it can measure the length of days of the Saviour of the world; before it can know how long the Word was before the world was.
  • C. F. McVagh, Western Canadian Tidings, December 18, 1918: To beget means to cause to exist.—Webster. The human body that was prepared for him was begotten, but Christ, the Annointed One, was not brought into existence when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. "His goings forth have been from of old from everlasting." Micah 5:2. Christ was begotten of the Father sometime before the period known as time, (Rev. 3:14) and he was begotten again at his resurrection (Acts 13:33, 34).

Thus, to Adventist pioneers eternity was outside of time. It can be illustrated as a continuum of:

Eternity |—Time—| Eternity

This is the only view which perfectly fits within the Hebraic understanding, the Greek of the New Testament, the early Adventist usage and Ellen White's writings. See the blog, From All Eternity, where this concept of "eternal" is discussed.

Succinctly. In one sentence: The Son of God was brought forth (i.e. "begotten") from the Father before Creation and Time, and is of the same substance as the Father; therefore, eternal and divine.

Notes

  • Denial by modern SDA theologians. "All this has made it desirable and necessary for us to declare our position anew upon the great fundamental teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every statement or implication that Christ, the second person fo the Godhead, was not one with the Father from all eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full and complete sacrificial atonement. The belief of Seventh-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified with, or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty concepts held by some, particularly in our formative years." —George Knight, Questions and Doctrine: Annotated Edition, p. 32. See also: Ministry Magazine, "Questions on Doctrine: Then and now". Quote: "Knight has sought to honestly and fairly review the controversial charges and countercharges the book generated between leading Adventist QOD contributors and those who took strong exception to their "answers" (especially on the atonement and the humanity of Christ)."