We're used to saying (though perhaps not comprehending) that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
But here's a thought which was new to me a few weeks ago: the Son's begetting is not just qualified by the divine eternality but by all the other attributes of classical theism.
Hilary of Poitiers noticed this a long time ago:
'...in the generation of the Son, the incorporeal and unchangeable God begets, in accordance with His own nature, God incorporeal and unchangeable.'
Which is one in the eye for those who think the eternal Son was eternally embodied.
But also helps with our trinitarian theology. Since the eternal Father's nature is indivisible, then he must beget the Son indivisibly. So we can retain the distinctions (between begetter and begotten) whilst affirming the essential inseparability of the persons in their eternal relations, as in their temporal acts.
So perhaps we need a new creed:
'... the Son, eternally, incorporeally, indivisibly, immutably, impassibly, simply, lovingly, righteously begotten of the Father'
And that's another happy thought too. Divine simplicity resides not just in the substance of the divine persons but also in their unlosable relations. Because the Father is simple, he begets simply and the Son he begets is simple and simply begotten.
Frame suggests that we should include 'triunity' as one of the classical attributes of God. Which is a really helpful reminder when we think about how the attributes relate. So that 'God is love' gets modified to read 'God is eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, immutable, impassible (etc., etc.) and triune love'.
Right. I'm waffling now. So I'll stop and save that for the Doctrine of God exam tomorrow.
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...