¶1There is a doctrine that has [music] become part of the famous nyine creed that says that the son of god is begotten from the father not in his human nature but in his divine nature. I do not believe or confess that the son is eternally begotten from the father in his divine nature. >> [music] >> Bill, about a week ago, a clip from one of our own uploads started circulating. You talking about the nyine creed and the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son from the father. We'll get into that.
¶2So hang with us. It got picked up by Protestia, which is a Christian publication uh polyical uh news items, controversial news items in the in the church and things like that. Uh which is north of a million views and the responses have not been gentle. Words like heresy once again have come up more than once. So today I want to just uh walk straight into it and read what your critics are actually saying point by point and let you respond.
¶3>> Let's start with the clip itself because I think a lot of people only saw 20 seconds of it. There is a doctrine that has become uh part of the famous [music] nyine creed that says that the son of god [music] is begotten from the father not in his human nature but in his divine nature. that somehow from eternity past, even prior to the incarnation and his virginal conception, the son of God is begotten from God the Father in his divinity. New Testament scholars seem to have reached something of a consensus that this is not a doctrine to be found in the New Testament. When John talks about Christ as the only begotten son of God, he's not talking about him being begotten in his divine nature.
¶4Certainly uh Christ is begotten in his human nature in being born of Mary, but I don't think you're going to find very good proof texts in the New Testament that Christ was eternally begotten in his divine nature. Rather, the origin of this doctrine stems from what is called logos christologology. This is the christologology or doctrine of Christ that was enunciated by the early Greek apologists people like um Athanagoras Tatian and Justin Martyr uh in the late 2n century after Christ from the gospel of John's description of the logos who in the beginning was with God and was God they imagined that initially there was just God the father and that somehow the mind of the father proceeded and came forth from him as a second person. Um and this was then the son of god who became incarnate in Christ. So the idea was that the second person the trinity proceeds out of or emanates out of the first person of the trinity the father.
¶5And this logos christologology became extremely influential in the early church and it eventually gets um ecclesiastical status as authoritative in the nyine creed and then the uh council of chaletan later on. I am skeptical of this doctrine. I I don't want to deny outright a doctrine that has such a strong ecclesiastical tradition. Um but I I refrain from affirming it. I I do not confess it.
¶6Um so my attitude toward this doctrine would be much like my attitude toward the question of whether there is gold on Mars. I don't believe that there's gold on Mars, but I don't disbelieve that there's gold on Mars either. I I just don't have a belief in that regard. And so similarly, I um I do not believe or confess that the son is eternally begotten from the father in his divine nature. And [music] I think in so saying I am being faithful to the [music] New Testament.
¶7>> In your own words, what is the claim that you were making? And just as important, what were you not claiming by this clip? My claim is that this doctrine that the son is begotten in his divine nature is not taught in the New Testament and therefore is not incumbent upon us. I'm not claiming that the rest of the Nying creed should not be believed. Quite the contrary.
¶8In fact, I think it should be. So to be clear, this isn't a denial of Christ's full deity. It's specifically about um the mechanism the creed uses to explain the father-son relationship within the divine nature. Is that a fair way to draw the line? Yes, that's correct.
¶9The question is whether the Son and the Holy Spirit are self-existent or whether they derive their existence from God the Father. The view of the Nying creed is not that the son and the spirit are created by the father but that the son is begotten by the father. The difference is that in creation, a person makes something that has a different nature than he has. For example, a carpenter might create a chair and they are of different natures. But in begetting, you beget something that has the same nature.
¶10So dogs beget puppies, cats beget kittens. And the idea here is that God the father has begotten uh eternally a son who therefore shares the divine nature with him. >> You said that you don't outright deny eternal generation. You just don't affirm it. And for listeners who aren't used to theological nuance, why hold that particular posture rather than just picking a side?
¶11[clears throat] >> I think that this debate has as much to do with authority as it does with the specific doctrine. As a Protestant, I regard scripture alone as infallible and authoritative. And therefore, if some creedal statement lacks biblical warrant, then I don't think we're obligated to believe it. And just yesterday, as I was reading in ecclesiology, I came across this wonderful quotation from Martin Luther in his essay, the Babylonian captivity of the church. Luther is speaking here of the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation that the bread and the wine in the Lord's supper literally turn into the flesh and blood of Christ.
¶12uh and Luther was skeptical of the doctrine of transubstantiation and he writes I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the toists whether approved by pope or by council remain only opinions and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without the scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. And that's exactly the position that I have enunciated. You see, the Roman Catholic Church has on its own authority added all sorts of doctrines that are not to be found in the scriptures. For example, in the doctrine of God, they've added the doctrine that God is impassible and simple.
¶13Uh in the doctrine of Christ, they've added that the son derives existence from the father. in the doctrine of man. They've added that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to every one of his descendants. So that you are guilty for the sin that Adam committed in the doctrine of salvation. They've added the doctrine that by God's grace, we are enabled to perform good works which in turn merit salvation.
¶14In the doctrine of the church, they've added that the bishop of Rome is the head of the visible church that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin and ascended into heaven in the doctrine of the last things. They've added that Christians whose sins have been completely expuned by the atoning death of Christ and forgiven by God will nevertheless be punished for those sins in purgatory after death. Those who accept such doctrines do so on the basis of ecclesiastical authority without scriptural mor. uh they don't accept them on the basis of the Bible but on the basis of the church's own authority. So I think honestly it's really good that we're having this discussion.
¶15Each one of us needs to ask himself the question, what is the source of authority for my beliefs as a Christian? Is it what the Bible teaches? Uh is it what my church teaches? what my denomination teaches. What is my authority?
¶16I want to quote again from Luther on transubstantiation. He wrote, "Therefore, I permit everyone to hold either of these opinions as he or she chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that they need not fear being called heretics if they believe that real bread and real wine are present on the altar, and that everyone may feel at liberty to ponder, hold, and believe either one view or the other without endangering one's salvation. without scriptural warrant for these doctrines. Uh, one is not a heretic for not [clears throat] asenting to these doctrines.
¶17You know, it seems the sharpest push back has been exeetical. Michael Carino, a theology professor at Boyce College, pointed to John 1:14, chapter 1 verse14. He said, quote, "This is heresy. The logos Christianity and eternal generation Craig doesn't confess isn't a product of Greek theologians. It comes straight from the apostles.
¶18And then he he cited John 1:14 quoting, "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." Uh, end of quote. So, Bill, what's your response to that specific text? >> Unfortunately, this just reverts to citing the very passage that most New Testament scholars and Johannine commentators agree does not contemplate the eternal generation of the son from the father. If anyone's interested in exploring this further, I want to commend Murray Harris's book Jesus as God, which has a thorough discussion of the relevant text that calls Jesus monogan, which has been translated as only begotten. And here's what Harris concludes.
¶19As far as the evidence of the New Testament is concerned, it may be safely said that monogenise is concerned with familial relations, not manner of birth. Neither the virgin birth of Jesus nor the eternal generation of the son is in John's mind when he uses the adjective monogan. So this response by uh the professor simply fails to advance the discussion. >> Put on your thick skin for this one, Bill. Uh Luke Stamps, a theology professor at the Clamp Divinity School of Anderson University, made a similar point, uh quoting, "I'm not a Craig hater.
¶20I think he has done a lot of imported apologetic work, but this is really bad. Logos christologology originates with John and Old Testament precedents. Both word and sun imply eternal origin. Uh plenty of plenty of from language in the New Testament that can't be reduced to the economy. End of quote, which we'll explain economy in a second.
¶21Bill, where where do you think that argument goes wrong? uh if it if it does. >> Well, let's tease apart Professor Stamp's statement. First, he says, "Logos christologology originates with John and Old Testament precedents." Well, uh, yes, the logos christologology of the early Greek apologists like Aanagaras and Tatan and so forth drew their inspiration from John's prologue where he speaks of the logos. And some scholars have speculated that John's idea of the logos could derive from the word of God in the Old Testament, though I doubt it.
¶22uh the word is never personified in the Old Testament. But in either case, there is no doctrine of divine beetting. Now, second, Professor Stamp says both word and son imply eternal origin. But here it's important to distinguish between the ontological trinity and the economic trinity. The onlogical trinity is God as he exists in himself independent of creation.
¶23The economic trinity concerns the various roles that the members of the trinity play in the plan of salvation. So for example, the father is the person who sends the son into the world. The son is the person who assumes a human nature, becomes incarnate and dies on the cross for our sins. The holy spirit is the person of the trinity who then superintends and sanctifies the church uh after the second person's ascension to heaven. And in that economic trinity, there is uh plenty of room for relations of subordination and obedience.
¶24The son submits to the father to do his will. The holy spirit does the will of the son and glorifies him. All of this does belong to the economic trinity. But that doesn't prove that these relations of subordination and derivation belong to the ontological trinity. Finally, Professor Stamp says there's plenty of from language in the New Testament that can't be reduced to the economy.
¶25To which my response is really um show me. I I'm open to the evidence. Show me. Uh I I'm waiting. >> You trace the doctrine's roots to 2 century apologists like Justin and Tertellian uh who you say adapted Pho's use of logos as divine reason.
¶26Is it possible the church fathers were simply drawing out something already implicit in John rather than importing something foreign to it? Well, certainly that's possible, but that remains to be shown. Uh, scripture doesn't commit us to believing something that's merely possible. Jared Moore is an evangelical uh pastor and blogger. He he he made possibly the technical the most technical objection and I want to read it carefully so that we don't straw man him.
¶27He wrote, quote, "When the church fathers and those who wrote the creed were arguing that the son is eternally begotten from the father, they were arguing for the logical taxes, the relational arrangement among the trinity. They were arguing for logical distinction, not ontological difference. There is no difference between the father, son, and holy spirit, for there is no between them." These three are one God, one nature. All that the father is, the son and holy spirit are as well. The only distinction among them is their logical order of subsistence, their taxes.
¶28Um without logical distinction, you have no distinction among the trinity. You end up with three gods if you separate the trinity rather than distinguish logically. and you end up with modalism if you say there is no logical distinction. End of quote. So, Bill, does his account of what eternal generation actually claims change your objection at all?
¶29>> I'm afraid that Pastor Moore has offered a quite erroneous interpretation of Nika. He's trying to water it down to make it acceptable. I saw a very funny cartoon uh just recently, Kevin, uh portraying me standing before a nyine tribunal and Athanasius is pointing his finger at me and says, "Dr. Craig, when we said begotten not made, we meant it." Well, that's exactly what I would say to Pastor Moore. He's denying that the creed teaches that the father is ontologically the font of the trinity.
¶30He's saying that they just stand in these ordering relations. First, second, third. Well, I can affirm that. Uh if his interpretation of the creed were right, then I'm certainly not a heretic. But at least I recognize what the creed actually says and then honestly choose to disagree.
¶31But he tries to water down the meaning of the creed so that you can deny the trinitarian processions and still claim to believe what the creed says. And I think that's just being duplicitous. >> You know, that graphic that you were talking about, Bill, uh is rather obnoxious. I mean, it's showing you facing the tribunal with sweat coming off of your your brow, you know, and when actually on the tribunal, those those are your your heroes. You would love to have a conversation with them and not be up there sweating.
¶32>> Exactly. When I see that cartoon, >> uh I don't feel at all offended because these are my people. Uh these are my guys. uh when I see Athanasius and uh and Alexander and others. So uh yeah, these are these are my heroes.
¶33>> Well, Pastor Moore also said, and I'll read this one, too. Quote, "If you're going to deny the Nine Creed, you'd better have a better answer than the creed rather than punting like William Lang Craig does in this video." End of quote. Setting aside whether deny is the right word for your position, uh what is your better answer? What do you offer in place of eternal generation to explain what makes the son the son and not just another instance of deity? [clears throat] >> Well, I honestly don't understand what he means by punting.
¶34uh just take a look at volume 2B of my systematic philosophical theology uh on the trinity. There I defend the view that God is a spiritual substance or soul equipped with three sets of rational faculties each sufficient for personhood. What makes the son the son and not the father is his unique firstperson perspective. The three persons of the trinity stand in so-called I thou relationships. The father can say to the son I am sending you into the world.
¶35And the son can say to the father I will do your will. So, it is these unique firstperson perspectives of this tripal being that differentiates the three persons. Well, here's something I want listeners to hear directly from you because I I don't think it's gotten much airtime in the reaction pieces. This isn't primarily a case of you shrugging at tradition. your own writing says the doctrine of eternal generation uh quote introduces a subordinationism into the godhead uh end of quote that you think anyone who affirms Christ's full deity should find troubling walk us through that concern.
¶36Why does saying the son's divine nature is derived from the father threaten his full equality with the father? I think that this becomes very evident Kevin in the article that appeared in the Catholic magazine first things on this controversy. Let me quote to you from the author and listen carefully to what he says. He says the oneness of the divine essence means that father, son and holy spirit share equally and fully in all the divine attributes eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence and so forth. But being unoriginated or underived is not one of those attributes.
¶37It does not belong to the divine essence but is unique to the father. It also meant that the attribute later called a say is characteristic of the father but not the son or the holy spirit. Craig's departure from Nyine Orthodoxy stems logically from his insistence that the son and the spirit must have the same assay as the father. So what this author is denying is that a sayy or self-existence belongs to the divine essence that god is not essentially a self-existent being who exists aay and this occasions two I think very serious questions number one isn't it essential to deity to be self-existent uh do we really think that god is not a self-existent being that he's some sort of contingent being. And secondly, doesn't it depreciate the person of the son compared [clears throat] to the father to regard him as not being selfexistent?
¶38How can you say that the son is not inferior to the father if the father has this great making property of a sayy or self-existence that the son and the spirit do not share? So I think those are really serious uh theological questions that need to be asked. Some of your critics would say the historic doctrine is careful to avoid exactly uh that trap that the father, son, and spirit share one undivided nature with no priority in time or being only in relational order. Do you think the distinction actually succeeds or does it um collapse under its own weight? >> Now these critics are clearly incorrect.
¶39The historic doctrine affirms the ontological priority of the father to the son and the holy spirit. That's what begetting means. And I think in that respect the article in first kings was right on target. Um the whole idea of the father begetting the son means that the son derives his existence from the father rather than being self-existent. But notice that if these critics are right that they themselves don't think there are these ontological derivation relations between the members of the trinity then I'm in the clear and they've got no complaint about my view.
¶40>> Father Ron Offing raised the pastoral stakes of this directly. He said quote Craig's teaching is heresy. Why does this matter? If the son is son only in a human sense, then he has no adoption as sons to offer us. Offering is said, we are already sons of God in a creaturely sense.
¶41The son gives us an adoption that we might be partakers of the divine nature. End of quote. So, Bill, how would you answer a concern like that? Coming not from a critic uh looking to score a point, but you know, somebody who's thinking through what this means for the doctrine of salvation. I find this objection puzzling.
¶42My becoming an adopted child of God doesn't in any way depend upon Christ's derivation from the father. Um, think for example of believers in the Old Testament. God in the Old Testament is the father of the Jewish people. The children of Israel are children of God. So already in the Old Testament without any talk of the derivation of the son from the father, we have this notion of adoption as God's children.
¶43And in any case, the economic trinity is enough to provide that notion of sunship that the second person of the trinity is God's son. He submits to and does the father's will, becomes incarnate. Uh and that's all in the economic trinity and that's uh more than sufficient for providing president for our adoption as [clears throat] children of God. Desh Duza asked what a lot of ordinary listeners might also be wondering. Uh why wade into this at all?
¶44What's the point of the exercise as he put it? Some people are reading this clip as you suddenly breaking from orthodoxy when you've published this argument as far back as Philosophical Foundations for Christian Worldview with JP Morland 2018 in the peer-reviewed journal Theologicum and International Journal for Philosophy and Religion and Philosophical theology. And it's been on our reasonable faith website under scholarly articles for years. Is this just an example of an already articulated and defended position going viral that people perhaps haven't researched your view? >> I'm afraid so, Kevin.
¶45I think folks just aren't familiar with my published work. One theologian I saw said he'd never heard of me and had to look me up in order to know what this was all about. Well, folks just aren't familiar with the work that I've been publishing over the years on this. >> So, Bill, if someone only saw the clip and nothing else, this little video short, what's [clears throat] the single most important piece of context that they're perhaps missing? >> Well, I think it would be my robust defense of the Trinity, including the full deity of Christ.
¶46And I would commend to our listeners the book One God, Three Persons, Four Views, edited by Chad McIntosh, in which I interact with a Unitarian theologian and give a very strong defense of the deity of Christ and of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. >> Let's look at a couple of practical applications. Bill, should a Christian who disagrees with you on this still consider you a co- lababorer in defending the faith or is this the kind of issue that should divide fellowship? Something that we uh should divide over? >> I don't think we should divide over it.
¶47I mean, should I separate myself from fellow Christians because they have added this extra biblical doctrine? Well, no. They're they're free to believe it if they want. Um but I'm just not obligated to believe it given the lack of biblical warrant for it. >> A quick question, Bill.
¶48Uh you know, we recite the Ning Creed most Sundays at my church and I've always had a little trouble with that particular line in the creed. Is it appropriate to remain silent and not recite that passage or or uh for that matter any passage that one doesn't agree with during the congregational recitation? And by the way, that's rather difficult for me because I'm the worship leader at my church and I'm on the platform facing the congregation. People may notice if I skip a portion of the creed. Yes, that makes it awkward for you, Kevin, but I I think you're right that one should not publicly affirm things that one does not believe.
¶49Uh I have a friend who uh will not sing the verses to a particular hymn if that hymn has bad theology in it. He will just stand and be silent. Uh I know another Christian philosopher who says that when he recites the nyine creed he adds a cautisal mentally in his mind when it says that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible he says well concrete objects but not abstract objects. Well I don't think that's uh a good practice Kevin. I think that uh we should only affirm uh verbally and publicly what we actually believe and that therefore silence is the better option uh when we come to something like this that we can't honestly affirm otherwise what we're doing is citing words with mental reservations.
¶50In closing, Bill, uh, thanks for being willing to sit, uh, with all this push back. I think it takes a thick skin. Like I said earlier, for anybody who wants to read your full argument on this, uh, we'll link to your paper, is God the Son begotten in his divine nature? Uh, in the show notes, and it's free to read at reasonablefaith.org. So, you can go there.
¶51Um but your closing thoughts Bill and talk about your section on this in your systematic philosophical theology. >> Well the relevant section would be in volume 2B on the trinity where I will give a very robust defense of what I call a biblical view of the trinity. It seems to me that there are two tenets to a biblical doctrine of the trinity. Number one that there is only one God and number two that there are exactly three persons father, son and holy spirit who are properly called god and that I think forms the essence of a biblical doctrine of the trinity.