What is the Eternal Generation of the Son?
There is currently a controversy regarding Christian philosopher William Lane Craig concerning his view of Jesus as the Son of God. Craig is not denying the deity of Jesus or the sonship of Jesus. It is much more nuanced than that.
In the following clip, Craig denies the eternal begetting of the Son.
Notice the inflammatory headline of the post. “William Lane Craig disavows the Nicene Creed.” Why do they say that? Because the Nicene Creed says “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages.”
It is the last part of the statement that is the problem.
The Council of Nicaea was called to deal with the Arian heresy. Arius taught that the New Testament language of “begotten” suggests that there was a time when the Son was not. The pre-incarnate Jesus must have been created by God, perhaps the very first creation.
What became the Nicene position affirmed that the Son is coeternal with the Father and there never was a time before the Son existed. But what about that "begotten" language?
While pre-Nicaea, the influential theologian and biblical scholar Origen already had laid the groundwork for this. He affirmed both that the Son was coeternal with the Father and the Son was begotten.
Episode 51 – Origen and Tertullian: The Most Respected of Heretics
According to John, God is light. The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation. For, agreeably to what we have already explained as to the manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father; and in which He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the mysteries of knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection, — in the same way ought we to understand also the meaning of His being the brightness: for it is by its splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is. And this splendour, presenting itself gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals, and gradually training, as it were, and accustoming them to bear the brightness of the light, when it has put away from them every hindrance and obstruction to vision, according to the Lord's own precept, Cast forth the beam out of your eye, renders them capable of enduring the splendour of the light, being made in this respect also a sort of mediator between men and the light. (First Principles 1.7)
What Origen is saying is that just as light emits brightness, so the Father generates (or begets) the Son. This does not happen at a specific time (like the incarnation) but is happening eternally. The Father eternally generates the Son.
What William Lane Craig seems to be saying is that the Word (Logos) is coeternal with the Father but only becomes the Son at the incarnation. This is not adoptionist Christology, as Craig affirms the divinity and pre-existence of Christ.
What Craig does deny is that the Father is eternally begetting or generating the Son. This kind of language has been used to teach a subordination within the Trinity, where the Son is always subordinate to the Father.
What you will find is that the doctrine of eternal generation is accepted by most Christian groups as being the orthodox position. I would point out, however, that is difficult to find clear evidence for it in the Bible. It seems to be an elegant solution to the problem of eternity and begetting but it is more philosophical than biblical.
What do I think of this doctrine? That is the subject for another post.
