Nicene Christology

[Dieter Schneider]

John Murray (Collected Writings, vol. 4, p.8) argues that Calvin rejects the inherent subordinationist Christology of Nicaea. Is Murray's assessment right? Does Nicea NOT re-affirm the full deity of Christ? I would also value some feedback on the H R Mackintosh's (The Doctrine Of The Person Of Jesus Christ, pp.181f.) translation which I am not entirely happy with. Thank you.

 

[MW]

Warfield -> Murray -> Reymond have espoused the autotheos of Christ and undermined the language of begetting which was formulated at Nicea. To give some air of traditional authority to their view, they enlist Calvin within their ranks, even though Calvin taught the Son is begotten of the Father. These theologians no doubt act from good motives, but they impoverish the reformed understanding of the Trinity and leave room for the charge of Tritheism.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Warfield -> Murray -> Reymond have espoused the autotheos of Christ and undermined the language of begetting which was formulated at Nicea. To give some air of traditional authority to their view, they enlist Calvin within their ranks, even though Calvin taught the Son is begotten of the Father. These theologians no doubt act from good motives, but they impoverish the reformed understanding of the Trinity and leave room for the charge of Tritheism.

I beg to differ and think that 'begetting' in the Nicene Creed is far too vague (Origen may well have subscribed, as did the semi-Arians), thus leaving the door open to subordinationism. It was homoousios that crunched it. At any rate, nothing is said about the eternal generation of the Son, and Calvin rightly refuses to speculate (see last sentence – Institutes 1.13.29).

 

[MW]

“A manifest distinction between the person of Christ and the person of the Father is here expressed; from which we infer, that he is not only the eternal God, but also that he is the eternal Word of God, begotten by the Father before all ages." Commentary on John 17:5.

“God begat Christ, when he gave him certain marks, whereby he might be known to be his true and lively image and Son. And yet this doth not let but that Christ is the Wisdom begotten of the eternal Father before time. But that is the secret generation.” Commentary on Acts 13:33.

Catechism of the Church of Geneva, or Calvin’s Catechism:

“M. Why do you call him the only Son of God, seeing that God designs to bestow this appellation upon us all?

S. That we are the sons of God we have not from nature, but from adoption and grace only, in other words, because God puts us in that place (John 1:1); but the Lord Jesus who was begotten of the substance of the Father, and is of one essence with the Father (Eph. 1:3), is by the best title called the only Son of God, because he alone is his Son by nature (Heb. 1:1).” Calvin’s Selected Works, 2:43.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

“A manifest distinction between the person of Christ and the person of the Father is here expressed; from which we infer, that he is not only the eternal God, but also that he is the eternal Word of God, begotten by the Father before all ages." Commentary on John 17:5.

“God begat Christ, when he gave him certain marks, whereby he might be known to be his true and lively image and Son. And yet this doth not let but that Christ is the Wisdom begotten of the eternal Father before time. But that is the secret generation.” Commentary on Acts 13:33.

Catechism of the Church of Geneva, or Calvin’s Catechism:

“M. Why do you call him the only Son of God, seeing that God designs to bestow this appellation upon us all?

S. That we are the sons of God we have not from nature, but from adoption and grace only, in other words, because God puts us in that place (John 1:1); but the Lord Jesus who was begotten of the substance of the Father, and is of one essence with the Father (Eph. 1:3), is by the best title called the only Son of God, because he alone is his Son by nature (Heb. 1:1).” Calvin’s Selected Works, 2:43.

I am familiar with Calvin's position and wonder whether Nicea affirms the Son as autotheos - which seems to be Calvin's contribution?

 

[MW]

Calvin is misunderstood, especially by those who have not grasped the way Trinitarian discussion proceeds either from substance to subsistence or subsistence to substance. Calvin's point in using "autotheos" is that the divine essence is underived. The second person has being in and of himself, as the name Jehovah indicates. But so far as the manner of subsistence is concerned, that is, as a person in relation to the other persons of the Trinity, the Son is begotten of the Father.

The older divines understood Calvin much better because they thought through the subject using the traditional approach to understanding Trinity. Thomas Cartwright clears Calvin of the charges the Papists brought against him:

The Rhemist’s Annotations on John 1:1, “you may confute here the blasphemy of Calvin, holding the second person to be God, not as of God the Father, but as of himself.”

Cartwright's response: “Master Calvin confuteth certain blasphemous heretics of our age, which placed all the essence of God in the person of the Father, and the Son with the Spirit to have no essence or being of themselves: using thereunto grounded reasons, and namely for the Son, that he is called Jehovah in the Scripture, which is a name signifying one that being of himself, giveth being unto all creatures... But for the further explaining of this truth by Master Calvin, let the reader look otherwhere in his works, that where the persons are noted, there he confesseth the Son of God to be of the Father touching his eternal essence. But when the eternal essence and simple nature is considered in itself, without relation of persons, there the essence is the same in all three persons.” Confutation of the Rhemists, p. 211.

 

[MW]

It only needs to be added that Nicea had earlier made the same point with relation to Christ's substance being underived: "not made, being of one substance with the Father." This is everything Calvin intended by his use of "autotheos."

 

[bookslover]

I beg to differ and think that 'begetting' in the Nicene Creed is far too vague (Origen may well have subscribed, as did the semi-Arians), thus leaving the door open to subordinationism. It was homoousios that crunched it. At any rate, nothing is said about the eternal generation of the Son, and Calvin rightly refuses to speculate (see last sentence – Institutes 1.13.29).

Nicea seems to have muddied the ontological waters quite a bit. The simple truth is that there is one God who exists in three Persons. All three Persons are exactly equal, ontologically, in every way, their differing Personhoods excepted. Also (and here's where Nicea got fouled up), all three Persons have always existed - non precedes the other. The Father didn't exist first, who then "begot" the Son.

Warfield and Murray and Reymond (and Loraine Boettner, and John Calvin) are right: to say that the Son (or the Spirit) are dependent on the Father for their existence as Persons in any way is to deny their self-existence as Persons; such a view does serious damage to the doctrine of the Trinity. Such alleged ontological subordination implies that there is really only one Person in the Godhead, and that He then "arranged for the existence" of other Persons. That view is both heretical and blasphemous. There is no ontological subordination; there is only economic subordination.

The fact that Origen was one of the major people behind the "doctrine" of eternal generation does not exactly fill one with confidence...

 

[MW]

With all due respect Richard, you clearly are not looking at the subject from an historical perspective, and have effectively avowed a multiplicity of gods by your statement that the Son is God EQUAL with the Father. This is what every Westerner is bound to when he naturally starts from the divinity of the persons and does not qualify himself.

Please consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics before pronouncing the language of Nicea heretical and blasphemous, for there you shall see it is the position of the reformed dogmaticians. The reformed tradition is catholic and therefore Nicene from beginning to end.

 

[bookslover]

...and have effectively avowed a multiplicity of gods by your statement that the Son is God EQUAL with the Father.

Not at all. The Son of God IS completely equal - in His Personhood - with the Father as God. The fact that they are two different Persons in the Godhead does not mean that they are two different gods.

As God, the three divine Persons are of the same essence. As different Persons, they are still perichoretically involved with and in one another.

It's perfectly possible to keep the Persons distinct, and to deny eternal generation, without falling into tri-theism.

One God, three Persons.

 

[bookslover]

Please consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics before pronouncing the language of Nicea heretical and blasphemous, for there you shall see it is the position of the reformed dogmaticians. The reformed tradition is catholic and therefore Nicene from beginning to end.

And what of that? Just because all the Reformed dogmaticians agree with Nicea on the subject of eternal generation doesn't make Nicea correct on this subject.

What counts is not how many Reformed dogmaticians agree with each other on a given subject, but whether the given subject is biblical.

 

[MW]

It's perfectly possible to keep the Persons distinct, and to deny eternal generation, without falling into tri-theism.

No, it is not. You say "one God" in words, but your explanation requires multiplicity of Gods. You are required to explain (without reverting to paradox) how you can have three autotheoi, and yet one theos. If you make the mode of subsistence of each person in the Godhead independent you make three independent Gods.

 

[MW]

What counts is not how many Reformed dogmaticians agree with each other on a given subject, but whether the given subject is biblical.

Are you supposing the reformed dogmaticians weren't concerned to provide an explanation as to what the Bible teaches? This is not a case of pitting the Scriptures against the tradition, but of pitting a few individuals' understanding of Scripture against the whole catholic and reformed tradition's understanding of Scripture.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Rev. Winzer, do you know of any good references which answer the charge of Murray and Reymond as you have done here? I'd be interested to learn more.

 

[ADKing]

Rev. Winzer, do you know of any good references which answer the charge of Murray and Reymond as you have done here? I'd be interested to learn more.

If you have access to EBSCO and ATLA the following article is available online. If not hopefully you have access to the Calvin Journal.

Calvin and Catholic trinitarianism: an examination of Robert Reymond's understanding of the Trinity and his appeal to John Calvin By: Owen, Paul. Source: Calvin Theological Journal, 35 no 2 N 2000, p 262-281. Publication Type: Article

At the recent Kerux conference held at Northwest Theological Seminary, James Dennison delivered a very good address called 'Thoughts on the Current Rejection of the Eternal Generation of the Son" in which he addresses the theological issues as well as makes some comments about why this should conern "conservative" presbyterians.

 

[ADKing]

Nicea seems to have muddied the ontological waters quite a bit. The simple truth is that there is one God who exists in three Persons. All three Persons are exactly equal, ontologically, in every way, their differing Personhoods excepted. Also (and here's where Nicea got fouled up), all three Persons have always existed - non precedes the other. The Father didn't exist first, who then "begot" the Son.

Warfield and Murray and Reymond (and Loraine Boettner, and John Calvin) are right: to say that the Son (or the Spirit) are dependent on the Father for their existence as Persons in any way is to deny their self-existence as Persons; such a view does serious damage to the doctrine of the Trinity. Such alleged ontological subordination implies that there is really only one Person in the Godhead, and that He then "arranged for the existence" of other Persons. That view is both heretical and blasphemous. There is no ontological subordination; there is only economic subordination.

The fact that Origen was one of the major people behind the "doctrine" of eternal generation does not exactly fill one with confidence...

*MODERATORS*

I believe the direction of the discussion when this thread was started is profitible to the church today. However, it is posts like this, which have repeatedly been made by this member on this and other forms, that cannot be tolerated.

The rules for members state:

c. Historic Creeds: All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, and the Definitions of Chalcedon.

d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.


9. Banning

It is not the general practice of the Board Administrators to ask a participant to leave. Generally the Board tries to be tolerant of postings, issuing warnings where appropriate first. Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and repeated violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism). The banning of members is at the discretion of the Administrators. Because the Puritanboard is not a local church there is not a session or forum to address issues as we are not set up in this manner.



I believe the moderators/administrators should make it absolutely clear that condemning Nicene orthodoxy as blasphemous and heretical will not be tolerated on the Puritan Board. This is made all the more aggrevating when it is apparent that the poster has not even attempted to understand or explain the catholic tradition accurately.

By all means let us discuss the Trinity and even the erroneous views of Reymond, but let us do so from WITHIN the confines of the Christian faith.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If you have access to EBSCO and ATLA the following article is available online. If not hopefully you have access to the Calvin Journal.

Calvin and Catholic trinitarianism: an examination of Robert Reymond's understanding of the Trinity and his appeal to John Calvin By: Owen, Paul. Source: Calvin Theological Journal, 35 no 2 N 2000, p 262-281. Publication Type: Article

At the recent Kerux conference held at Northwest Theological Seminary, James Dennison delivered a very good address called 'Thoughts on the Current Rejection of the Eternal Generation of the Son" in which he addresses the theological issues as well as makes some comments about why this should conern "conservative" presbyterians.

Thanks, I'll look these up!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Nicea seems to have muddied the ontological waters quite a bit. The simple truth is that there is one God who exists in three Persons. All three Persons are exactly equal, ontologically, in every way, their differing Personhoods excepted. Also (and here's where Nicea got fouled up), all three Persons have always existed - non precedes the other. The Father didn't exist first, who then "begot" the Son.

Warfield and Murray and Reymond (and Loraine Boettner, and John Calvin) are right: to say that the Son (or the Spirit) are dependent on the Father for their existence as Persons in any way is to deny their self-existence as Persons; such a view does serious damage to the doctrine of the Trinity. Such alleged ontological subordination implies that there is really only one Person in the Godhead, and that He then "arranged for the existence" of other Persons. That view is both heretical and blasphemous. There is no ontological subordination; there is only economic subordination.

The fact that Origen was one of the major people behind the "doctrine" of eternal generation does not exactly fill one with confidence...

The Nicene Fathers did not advocate ontological subordination. The term "God of God" clearly refutes such an accusation. It's not "god of God" but "God of God." They are clearly saying that Jesus Christ is fully God, not lacking any property of the divine nature. The fact that generation is eternal as well refutes subordinationism. We may not like the way they phrase it now, but in context, they were refuting subordinatoinism (i.e. arianism) not advocating it.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

I did not intend to provoke a theological slinging match.
The Nicene Creed, of course, did not settle the Arian dispute. Things got more complicated (and once you start translating Greek into Latin...).
I was simply wondering about Calvin in relation to Nicaea - I am still unsure but will keep an open mind. I think Calvin seemed reluctant - somehow.

I also think that Calvin would have wanted us to fall down and worship. Let our theology exit into doxology. After all, God is God and man is man. We cannot think Him out - fully!

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, do you know of any good references which answer the charge of Murray and Reymond as you have done here? I'd be interested to learn more.

I would recommend the article referred to by Rev. King. There is a mass of earlier literature which is too conveniently ignored by those who deny the eternal generation. One may consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, as before noted, for the historic reformed position. Turretin, Institutes 1:291, 292, carefully explains what is meant by autotheos; and 292-302 explains what is meant by the eternal generation of the Son. Francis Cheynell (Westminster divine) has a section where he defends Calvin and Beza in his "Divine Trinunity." For Beza's own view one may consult Propositions and Principles of Divinity, 1591, pp. 5-7. There is also an intelligent discussion in Cunningham's Historical Theology, 1:293-305.

 

[etexas]

With all due respect Richard, you clearly are not looking at the subject from an historical perspective, and have effectively avowed a multiplicity of gods by your statement that the Son is God EQUAL with the Father. This is what every Westerner is bound to when he naturally starts from the divinity of the persons and does not qualify himself.

Please consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics before pronouncing the language of Nicea heretical and blasphemous, for there you shall see it is the position of the reformed dogmaticians. The reformed tradition is catholic and therefore Nicene from beginning to end.

 

[bookslover]

I beg to differ and think that 'begetting' in the Nicene Creed is far too vague (Origen may well have subscribed, as did the semi-Arians), thus leaving the door open to subordinationism. It was homoousios that crunched it. At any rate, nothing is said about the eternal generation of the Son, and Calvin rightly refuses to speculate (see last sentence – Institutes 1.13.29).

Here's Calvin's sentence: ...it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from all eternity. This doesn't sound as if Calvin is refusing to speculate; it sounds as if he's calling a continuous act of begetting "foolish".

As for Calvin's seemingly contradictory remarks on this subject in his commentaries, all I can say is that this comment is from the last (1559) edition of the Institutes, which post-dates many of his commentary comments, I believe. Calvin must have done some further thinking on the subject and come to reject eternal generation.

The bottom line question, it seems to me, is: since all three Persons of the Trinity (and I believe in only one God, as the Bible teaches, despite what Mr. King and Mr. Winzer say I believe) have always existed (since God is three Persons, with none of the Persons existing before or after any of the others), and are exactly equal to each other ontologically and essentially (the fact of their differing Persons excepted) what is there to "generate"? And, calling the generation "eternal" doesn't solve the problem, it just shoves it back into eternity past.

Loraine Boettner, in his Studies in Theology, in an article originally published in the late 1930s, stated quite bluntly that the alleged proof texts for eternal generation prove no such thing. He's right - and I never heard of him being read out of the church for daring to disagree with Nicea.

Finally, if such esteemed fathers of the Reformed tradition as John Calvin, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, Loraine Boettner, and Robert Reymond have become restive over this doctrine, and are willing to question Nicea on this topic, isn't this an indication that the doctrine of eternal generation can legitimately be called into question? (At least one non-Reformed theologian, Wayne Grudem, has done the same, in his Systematic Theology.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I believe the moderators/administrators should make it absolutely clear that condemning Nicene orthodoxy as blasphemous and heretical will not be tolerated on the Puritan Board. This is made all the more aggrevating when it is apparent that the poster has not even attempted to understand or explain the catholic tradition accurately.

By all means let us discuss the Trinity and even the erroneous views of Reymond, but let us do so from WITHIN the confines of the Christian faith.

Richard,

I agree with this. Nicene orthodoxy is so fundamental to the Christian testimony throughout the ages that you really need to be more circumspect in claiming that the Nicene Fathers muddied the waters.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Finally, if such esteemed fathers of the Reformed tradition as John Calvin, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, Loraine Boettner, and Robert Reymond have become restive over this doctrine, and are willing to question Nicea on this topic, isn't this an indication that the doctrine of eternal generation can legitimately be called into question? (At least one non-Reformed theologian, Wayne Grudem, has done the same, in his Systematic Theology.)

Richard,

Our Westminster Divines re-affirm this language. It is Confessional. Whether or not theologians (including Calvin) have wrestled with it or confessed otherwise is immaterial to this board.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

III. 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:38 the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;39 the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.40

Chapter XXXI
Of Synods and Councils

II. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.4

 

[Dieter Schneider]

My initial comments were not intended to focus upon the eternal generation of the Son (I am one with Calvin). It is well-known that Origen (not an orthodox Trinitarian) advocated the 'eternal generation' of the Son and opposing parties were happy to cite him in support. All parties (Orthodox or not) agreed with Origen – so it seems. Something more was needed – to exclude the Arians, hence the adoption of 'homoousios' and the anathema clauses.
I think the whole thing is rather complex as Greek has changed its meaning over the years and translation into Latin was tricky, too.
I would contend that Calvin was cautious over Nicaea rather than positively affirmative, though I am being tentative here. At any rate, he always takes us back on a more sure footing: Scripture!

 

[bookslover]

I believe the moderators/administrators should make it absolutely clear that condemning Nicene orthodoxy as blasphemous and heretical will not be tolerated on the Puritan Board...By all means let us discuss the Trinity and even the erroneous views of Reymond, but let us do so from WITHIN the confines of the Christian faith.

So, it's not possible for Nicea to be wrong, even in principle? Nicea is so sacrosanct that not only can it not be changed, it cannot even be questioned? That anyone who challenges the Nicene Creed at this point (or at any other point, for that matter) is always and automatically wrong? Even Warfield? Even Murray?

And how do you know that Reymond's views are erroneous? Have you made a thorough investigation of the matter? Or are you just automatically assuming that Reymond must be wrong because he disagrees with Nicea?

And, yes, the Westminster divines included "begotten" language in their secondary standards. But, did they do so because they were convinced - from Scripture - that eternal generation is biblical? Or did they incorporate that language merely because it was there to be incorporated from previous documents - theological boilerplate, so to speak, that they were merely passing along? Is there any way we can know what the divines thought at this point?

The point I am trying to make, with all due respect, is that men such as Warfield, Murray, Boettner, etc., and me (and I'm certainly not putting myself at the same level as those men) are not convinced that eternal generation is actually found in Scripture, but that it is not permissible to question the doctrine, not because it is or isn't found in the Bible, but because it is found in various creeds and confessions, which apparently means the end of all discussion.

I sincerely adhere to the Westminster Standards. I think they are marvellously wonderful and succinct condensations of the Bible's theology. But, at this particular point, I think their theology is offbase.

I think it's good to adhere to the secondary standards. But it's more important to be loyal to the Scriptures. No creed or confession is infallible or inerrant - even in principle. (And this is something that even the Westminster Confession of Faith admits about itself.) Those terms are to be applied to the Scriptures alone. If the Westminster Confession is willing to admit that it might be wrong about something, why is it apparently so evil to say that any secondary standard might be wrong?

Yes, we adhere to secondary standards; but, out of loyalty to the Scriptures, and the God of those Scriptures, we dare not practice such adherence unquestioningly. To do so is to place such standards above the Scriptures, in my opinion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, we adhere to secondary standards; but, out of loyalty to the Scriptures, and the God of those Scriptures, we dare not practice such adherence unquestioningly. To do so is to place such standards above the Scriptures, in my opinion.

Richard,

I'm frankly getting a little tired of this charge. I adhere to the WCF because I confess, along with the Church, what I believe the Scriptures teach. I do so with my eyes wide open.

I sincerely adhere to the Westminster Standards. I think they are marvellously wonderful and succinct condensations of the Bible's theology. But, at this particular point, I think their theology is offbase.

What if I was to substitute the doctrine: Justification by faith alone?

What if you were advocating a version of Romanism at this point?

Why would it be permissible to hold your feet to the fire on that doctine and not on the point of Nicene Trinitarianism.

I'm increasingly amazed at people who say they love the Standards but then say things like:

...did they incorporate that language merely because it was there to be incorporated from previous documents - theological boilerplate, so to speak, that they were merely passing along?

It's a wonderful Confession until it steps on the toes of your private study and then the Divines are suddenly ignorant men who, unlike you, don't have the benefit of study of the issue. Same with Nicea and the entire Church.

I think it's good to adhere to the secondary standards. But it's more important to be loyal to the Scriptures. No creed or confession is infallible or inerrant - even in principle. (And this is something that even the Westminster Confession of Faith admits about itself.) Those terms are to be applied to the Scriptures alone. If the Westminster Confession is willing to admit that it might be wrong about something, why is it apparently so evil to say that any secondary standard might be wrong?

Yes, it admits that it can be Reformed but Reformed by the Church by Synods and Councils. This doctrine is far too core for people to be wrecklessly speaking beyond guideposts that the Church has erected for centuries to guard the Church.

Decide for yourself whether you decide to continue posting on this board. You may seek to clarify why our Creeds and Confessions teach what they do.

As much as I like you and as much as we have gotten along on this board, I simply cannot permit this air of "the Nicene Fathers and the Divines were numnuts" attitude from people who state they subscribe to our Confessional documents. Confessionalism ceases to mean anything when you don't have to submit to it humbly when it is challenging your intellectual pride on an issue. At the very least, where you might disagree, a spirit of humility ought to prevail concerning the fact that you are a single man speaking against the Church's historic Creed and Reformed Confession!

 

[ADKing]

So, it's not possible for Nicea to be wrong, even in principle? Nicea is so sacrosanct that not only can it not be changed, it cannot even be questioned? That anyone who challenges the Nicene Creed at this point (or at any other point, for that matter) is always and automatically wrong? Even Warfield? Even Murray?

And how do you know that Reymond's views are erroneous? Have you made a thorough investigation of the matter? Or are you just automatically assuming that Reymond must be wrong because he disagrees with Nicea?

And, yes, the Westminster divines included "begotten" language in their secondary standards. But, did they do so because they were convinced - from Scripture - that eternal generation is biblical? Or did they incorporate that language merely because it was there to be incorporated from previous documents - theological boilerplate, so to speak, that they were merely passing along? Is there any way we can know what the divines thought at this point?

The point I am trying to make, with all due respect, is that men such as Warfield, Murray, Boettner, etc., and me (and I'm certainly not putting myself at the same level as those men) are not convinced that eternal generation is actually found in Scripture, but that it is not permissible to question the doctrine, not because it is or isn't found in the Bible, but because it is found in various creeds and confessions, which apparently means the end of all discussion.

I sincerely adhere to the Westminster Standards. I think they are marvellously wonderful and succinct condensations of the Bible's theology. But, at this particular point, I think their theology is offbase.

I think it's good to adhere to the secondary standards. But it's more important to be loyal to the Scriptures. No creed or confession is infallible or inerrant - even in principle. (And this is something that even the Westminster Confession of Faith admits about itself.) Those terms are to be applied to the Scriptures alone. If the Westminster Confession is willing to admit that it might be wrong about something, why is it apparently so evil to say that any secondary standard might be wrong?

Yes, we adhere to secondary standards; but, out of loyalty to the Scriptures, and the God of those Scriptures, we dare not practice such adherence unquestioningly. To do so is to place such standards above the Scriptures, in my opinion.

Richard,

In accordance with Titus 3:10-11 this will be my final post with you on this matter. I realize this sounds strong. Nevertheless you have been repeatedly warned by ministers of the gospel both within and without your denomination. Many have undertaken to teach you. Yet you refuse to listen and in fact continue to misrepresent the truth and denounce it as heretical and blasphemous. I will no longer give you a platform by engaging you in debate. I write to warn you most sincerely and earnestly as a minister of Jesus Christ to desist from your destructive path.

No one is arguing that Nicea as such was an infalible council above or equal to God's word. What is being argued, and has been argued by the whole church for many years, (and has been explained to you numerous times before) is that Nicea accurately reflects the teaching of God's word on an article so important that unless one believes rightly about it he cannot be saved.

Quite frankly, your rhetoric about "sincerely adhering" to the Westminster Standards cannot be taken seriously in light of the very strong claims you have made to one of its most crucial tenents. The language you use about going back to the Bible rather than the creeds may sound pious but is in fact the same argumnet that has been advanced by every Arian, Socinian and Unitarian in this debate.

I know that I most likely will not persuade you with this but pray God will give you the grace to be humble enough to reconsider and repent.

I now bow out of this discussion with you and allow the moderators to do what they see necessary.

 

[MW]

Here's Calvin's sentence: ...it is foolish to imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from all eternity. This doesn't sound as if Calvin is refusing to speculate; it sounds as if he's calling a continuous act of begetting "foolish".

Richard, you are reading Calvin in the light of the present day rather than against the backdrop of the medieval theology he was countering. Lombard had written in the Sentences 1:9:4, "Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre nec principium habeat nec finem, quia aeterna est, utrum debeat dicit: Filius semper gignitur, vel semper genitus est, vel semper gignetur." The question assumes "the generation of the Son by the Father has neither a beginning nor an end, because it is eternal." This is the orthodox position. Then comes Lombard's speculative question which Calvin refuses to engage in: "Whether it ought to be said, The Son is always begotten, or always has been begotten, or always will be begotten?" Calvin's refusal to speculate has nothing to do with the generation of the Son per se. Therefore when you speculate that Calvin contradicted himself or changed his mind you are way off base.