RE: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship of Christ

[Jonathan Hughes]

The Divine Processions and the Eternal Sonship of Christ with a refutation of Mormon errors on this subject Introduction This essay looks at the Catholic Doctrines of the Divine Processions and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and refutes some Mormon errors in this regard. The First section is an extract from "The Creed Explained" by Rev. Arthur Devine (Passionist), p. 114-118), 1892) on the subject of the Divine Processions. This section may be found to be a bit technical, but is worth the effort. Next some objections will be considered, specifically we shall refute a nuber of objections to the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, a doctrine which is an essential component of the Doctrine of the Divine Processions. PART I: The Divine Processions To explain how Christ is the Son of God, involves the question of the Divine Processians and Relations. By Procession, we mean the coming forth or emanation of one thing from another. Procession is two-fold (a) ad intra or immanens, that, whose term remains in the principle from which it proceeds, and does not go beyond it; (b) ad extra or transient, which is that, whose term or effect goes outside the principle from which it proceeds; thus our words, and the productions of nature, are examples of procession ad extra. It is either perfect or imperfect. Perfect, when the term or that which proceeds subsists, and is the same as the subject from which it proceeds. Imperfect, when the term or effect either dees not subsist, as in the example of the thoughts of the mind, er is not the same as its principle or fountain head, such as in created things; a son is not the same individual nature as his father. In every procession we have three things to consider, namely, the action, the principle, and the term. The principle is that from which the term proceeds. The action is the very act of the principle which produces the term, it is the way to the term, and the term or result is that which is produced. That there are Processions in God no one has denied, except those who have denied the Mystery af the Holy Trinity. It is also clear from the Sacred Scriptures, and from the definitions and declarations of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The reason for this arises from the fact, that there are three Persons in God, really distinct in one and the same divine nature. And this cannot be unless there be Processions. There cannot be three Persons unless there be same opposition or difference between them by which one can be distinguished from another. But, in the divine Persons there can be no opposition, except what is called relative opposition, and the relations are founded on the divine Processions, and therefore there must be Processions in God. According to Scripture, and the Creeds of faith, there are two Processions (ad intra) in God. There are only three Personsï the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding. Therefore, there are two and only two Processions, namely, the Procession of the Son from the Father, and of .the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. The reason of this is, because we have to admit Procession in God according to His internal actions, or the actions that remain in Himself, and these are two and two only: the act of the intellect, and the act of the will, virtually distinct from one another. Now we have to consider the question of the Sonship; that is, that the Procession of the Son is called generation and not the Procession of the Holy Ghost. As we have explained, there are in God two Processions: the Procession of the Son from the intellect; and of the Holy Ghost from the Will. In regard to these, some things are of faith; and these I shall state before introducing those on which the opinions of theologians differ. It is of faith that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Son and the only begotten Son of God; and, therefore, it is of faith that the Procession of the Son is a generation, but the Procession of the Holy Ghost is not a generation. Hence, it followe that the Son proceeds from the Father by generation; the Holy Spirit does not proceed by generation, but by simple procession from the Father and the Son. This doctrine is proved from Scripture, for the reason that, in Holy Scripture, the Second Person is called the Son, and said to be begotten, and the only begotten, whilst the Holy Ghost is never called Son, and never said to have been begotten, but simply proceeding, as is expressed in the Athanasian Creed: The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost from the Father and Ihe Son, not made, nor created, but proceeding.ï In further elucidation of this doctrine, it is necessary to understand what is meant by generation. What is meant by Generation Generation is two-fold, the generation of animate and inanimate thinge. The generation of inanimate, or not living things, is the change effected by bringing them from the state of non-existence into existence, ar their production from nothing, the same as creation; or from something else, from which they are produced by same external agency. Amongst living things generation is defined: Origo viventis a vivente conjuneto in similitudine naturae speeificae: ,,The origin or coming forth of a living being from another, in the similitude of ite specifie nature ; in other words, generation means "a substantial production, by virtue of which the being produced is made like in nature to the being that produces it." Thue a man produces a man, a horse a horse, and so on, because these, by virtue of their production, are made in the same nature as their progenitors. Notice the words "by virtue of the production or the procession" because Eve proceeded, or was made, from the rib of Adam, and this, although it was the origin or substantial production of one living being from another in the likeness of nature, yet that similitude was not by virtue of the production, because any other species of creature might be produced from the rib of Adam in the same way: and it was not by virtue of her production that Eve was a human being, hence her procession was not a generation, and she was not a child of Adam. The procession of the Word in the divine nature is a real generation. It is the procession of a living being from a living being, namely, from the divine intelligence, and joined or united with its principle; for the action by which the Son proceeds does not proceed outside God, but remains in Him by the most intimate union. And He proceeds in the likeness of nature, bccause the concept of the intellect is the likeness of the thing understood, and existing in the same nature, because in God to be and to understand are one and the same thing. As to the reason why the procession of the Son is called generation, and not the procession of the Holy Ghost, there are various opinions. St. Augustine assigns it as the reason, because the Son proceeds from one. No Son proceeds from two Fathers. Vasques and others say, that it is because the Son proceeds as the Image of the Father. Others, because the Son has from the Father a nature by which He can produce another, namely, the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from the two. Lastly, the reason assigned by St. Thomas and his followers is, that the Son proceeds from the divine intellect, which of itself assimulates to itself that which it produces; and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the divine Will which does not assimulate by its own act, or make its object like to itself. Although the Holy Ghost is in all things equal to, and like to the Father and the Son, this likeness is by reason of the Divine Nature which is common to the Three, and not by reason of the Procession. For the rest, let us be satisfied to confess with St. Gregory Nazianzen, the generation of the Son, as well as the procession of the HoIy Ghost, is rather to be Holy than investigated, as the Mystery is ineffable. (Oration 31:8) It is in this eternal generation of the Son that we express our faith when we say the Creed. He is the Son of God under many lesser titles; because He was conceived by the Holy Ghost; because sent by the Father; because of the resurrection as the first-born of the children of men; because of His actual possession of the inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven; but in a way above all these, in a way peculiar to Himself, and in a way in which no other Son can have any share or similitude, He is the only-begotten Son of God by eternal generation. He was before John the Baptist according to the testimony of St. John himself: "This is He of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me, because He was before me." He was before Abraham, which speaks a longer time than John the Baptist : "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, O say to you, before Abraham was made I am. Christ's existence extends to a far longer period according to the words of St. Peter: "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the Spirit. In which also coming He preached to those spirits. that were in prison. Which had been sometime incredulous when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe when the Ark was. a~building.." From which it appears, that Christ certainly preached by His same divine spirit, by which He afterwards raised Himself from the dead, to the souls in Limbo in the days of Noah, and while the ark was being prepared. Finally, He existed at the beginning of the world, for He created it as the Scriptures tell us. Hence St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, (God) "in these days hath spoken to us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the world." PART II: Some objections considered We will now address one or two objections to the Catholic teaching on the Divine Processions and the Eternal Sonship of Christ. On page 126 of the recent Mormon book "Restoring the Ancient Church", the author writes "the majority of Christian writers before Origen seemed to have dated Jesus "sonship" [sic.] to His incarnation". The line of argument in this book apparently goes that a) Christ's Sonship only dates from His Incarnation; b) therefore He is not eternal Son; c) therefore, it is claimed, the Catholic views of the Divine Processions (and the Eternal Sonship of Christ) are in error, and in fact, the Mormon beliefs are corect. This argument is in error because the Mormon idea of the nature of God, including the Sonship of Christ, are erroneous. Three verses are referenced in the footnote of this book as support against the doctrine of Christ's eternal Sonship. These footnoted references are discussed below. Alink to other verses from the Fathers of the Church on this subject is also incluuded below. 1. St Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 1 (Hoole translation, 1885) I glorify God even Jesus Christ, who hath thus made you wise; for I perceived that ye were perfected in immovable faith, as though ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ in flesh and in spirit, and firmly fixed in love in the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with regard to our Lord, that he was truly of the race of David according to the flesh, the Son of God according to the will and power of God; truly born of a virgin; baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him; truly nailed for us unto the cross in the flesh in the time of Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch; from the fruit of which cross are we, even from his divinely blessed passion, that he might raise up a sign unto the ages, by means of the resurrection, even unto the saints and them that believe in him, whether they be among the Jews or the Gentiles, in one body of his church. Notice the passage says 'the Son of God according to the will and power of God.' It say nothing to the effect that Jesus was the Son only by virtue of His Incarnaton. 2. Hippolytus Against Neotus, 15 What Son of His own, then, did God send through the flesh but the Word, whom He addressed as Son because He was to become such (or be begotten) in the future? And He takes the common name for tender affection among men in being called the Son. For neither was the Word, prior to incarnation and when by Himself, yet perfect Son, although He was perfect Word, only-begotten. Nor could the flesh subsist by itself apart from the Word, because it has its subsistence in the Word. Thus, then, one perfect Son of God was manifested. The error here is that, though Hippolytus rightly says that the flesh cannot subsist apart from the Word, he incorrectly thinks that the corollary must be true also (viz, that the Word is not the Son apart from the flesh). This is obviously not the case. The Word does not need to flesh to subsist. And n fact Hippolytus continues 16. And these indeed are testimonies bearing on the incarnation of the Word; and there are also very many others. If we look at Catholic Answers: The Eternal Sonship of Christ we see that the other testimonies spoken of by Hippoytus in regard to the Incarnation of Christ make note of the fact of Christ's eternal Sonship. (They do notsay the Word was not fully Son before the Incarnation.) So we see Hippolytus views on the dependency of the Word on the flesh for full Sonship were rejected by the Church Fathers as a whole. Note also that the Mormon book "Restoring the Ancient Church" does not cite any other Father who supports Hippolytusïs isolated statement. 3. The third and last verse cited against Christïs Eternal Sonship is Tertullian, ïOn the Flesh of Christ, 23: We acknowledge, however, that the prophetic declaration of Simeon is fulfilled, which he spoke over the recently-born Saviour:(1) "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against."(2) The sign (here meant) is that of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."(3) We discover, then, what the sign is which is to be spoken against--the conception and the parturition of the Virgin Mary, concerning which these sophists(4) say: "She a virgin and yet not a virgin bare, and yet did not bear;" just as if such language, if indeed it must be uttered, would not be more suitable even for ourselves to use! For "she bare," because she produced offspring of her own flesh and "yet she did not bear," since she produced Him not from a husband's seed; she was "a virgin," so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and "yet not a virgin," as regards her bearing a child. There is not, however, that parity of reasoning which the heretics affect: in other words it does not follow that for the reason "she did not bear,"(5) she who was "not a virgin" was "yet a virgin," even because she became a mother without any fruit of her own womb. But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense.(6) Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; "whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."(7) She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife(8) when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of "opening the womb,"(9) wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband's co-operation or not;(10) it was the same sex(11) that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord."(12) For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one?(13) But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin's womb, therefore, was especially(14) opened, because it was especially closed. Indeed(15) she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife. And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but "of a woman," he in that statement recognised the condition of the "opened womb" which ensues in marriage.(16) We read in Ezekiel of "a heifer(17) which brought forth, and still did not bring forth." Now, see whether it was not in view of your own future contentions about the womb of Mary, that even then the Holy Ghost set His mark upon you in this passage; otherwise(18) He would not, contrary to His usual simplicity of style (in this prophet), have uttered a sentence of such doubtful import, especially when Isaiah says, "She shall conceive and bear a son."(19)   A reading of the above passage shows it hsas nothing to do with the question of the Sonship of Christ only dating from the Incarnation, as Mormons would propose. In conclusion, the three verses cited against Christïs Eternal Sonship do not make any case at all. Two of the verses do not address the subject. The third one (that of Hippolytus) is an opinion which is heavily weighed against by the early Church Fathers. And even this citation from Hippolytus does not openly deny the eternal Sonship, which he says was merely not "perfect" until the Incarnation. Incidentally, the denial of the eternal sonship has deceived some prominent Evangelical Protestants, such as John MacArthur (who later reverses his position), Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke , J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults) PART III: The significance of the denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ for Mormon theology? The significance of the denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ for Mormon theology is that the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ is not compatible with their belief in a) spirit pre-existence, a belief which takes away from the uniqueness of the Sonship of Christ (by claiming we are all literally begotten of the Father); b) their belief that 'God' is qualitatively merely an exalted man, and that men can attain to godhood. If this were the case, the idea of eternal sonship is meaningless; c) The proof of the Eternal Sonship of Christ is a strong teaching in support of the doctrine of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, a doctrine the Mormons reject in favour of their "progression" model. By proving the truth of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Divine Processions in God, the Mormon denial of the Holy and Eternal Trinity can be refuted. We have spoken above of verses uses by the Fathers. But what Scriptural citations might be of use in this discussion? Some verses which indicate a Father ïSon relationship before the Incarnation include the famous John 3:16: here we see that Christ was God's Son even before He became incarnate. Also see John 16:28; 17:5,24, and Romans 1:3. Finally, a word should be said about the most commonly cited Scriptural verse which is mistakenly construed to mean Christ's Sonship began in time (in other words, a denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ). This verse is Psalm 2:7: (also cited in Hebrews 1:5): "you are my son, today I have begotten thee" This verse, however, does not speak against the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. It does not refer to a moment in time time when Christ became the Son of God through the Incarnation. Rather, it refers primarily to King Solomon, who was a type (or prefigurement) of Christ. In Psalm 2:7 King David is handing the kingdom over to his son. In the same way, God the Father hands the Kingdom of Heaven over to His Son Jesus Christ. This psalm is a coronation psalm, not a psalm celebrating the birth of a son. Psalm 2:7 is also a Messianic psalm in the sense that Jesus is of course also descended from the line of David. It may also be pointed out that Psalm 2:7 is an eternal decree of God, not relating to a specific point in time. Conclusion This essay has sought to demonstrate the doctrine of the Divine Processions and within this context to explain away some of the erroneous views of the Mormon religion, specifically in regard to the Mormon rejection of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, a doctrine Mormonism must deny in order to support their views on pre-existence and progresson to godhood. http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/processions.html --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004