Eternal Generation of the Son: Creedal, Yes, but not Biblical!

Also, review the following video: Rejecting Eternal Generation of the Son

In Reformed circles, most hold to the doctrine of Eternal Generation (EG). Adopting this view merely because it is creedal (Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian) or confessional (WCF, LBCF) without any biblical exegetical evidence or scrupulous study of Scripture is tantamount to treating creeds and confessions as superior to the Word of God. God forbid!

Remember, EG theoreticians define their view as an eternal aspect, not an incarnational one. For this, they rely heavily on patristics to argue that the Son derives His being from the Father. Even among present-day scholars, professors like Matthew Barrett insist on teaching EG as a critical aspect of Trinitarianism, whereby the Son is eternally generated by the Father (see his book, Simple Trinity, 155 ff.). Yet, in my opinion, any systematic theologian worth their salt should know that a [g]od deriving from another in eternity is no [g]od at all!

Where does Scripture reveal the derivative language of EG before the incarnation as it relates to the Eternal Son? For example, where does Scripture say He is "true God from true God" (bold emphasis added) in eternity, before His earthly pilgrimage, as noted in the Nicene Creed? Yes, Christ is in every way God, and whatever the Scripture says about God is also said of the Eternal Son. However, God's Word demonstrates a fully coequal Trinity, not a hierarchical or derivative one.

In the prologue of John's gospel, verse 1:1b does not say the Logos "was from or of the Father," but "with the Father" (bold emphasis added). John's use of the stative verb ēn + preposition pros + articular noun Theon, from an exegetical perspective, proves a perfect coequal and coeternal Trinity or intercommunion between the Father and the Son in eternity, not the doctrine of EG.

Several verses later, John's Gospel refers to the Logos as the “only begotten” [mono: one or only + genes: kind or class] Son (John 1:18). After the Greek participial construction o ōn or "which is" [lit., ‘the is-ing’ One; denoting continuous being], John did not use the Greek preposition apo ("from"). Instead, He used eis, translated as "in," to explain how the Eternal Son was always "in the bosom" (Hebrew idiom) of the Father. Even here, the Son is not "from the Father."

Interestingly, some proponents of EG who rightfully reject Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS), Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission (ERAS) or Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), will accuse the supporters of these views of reading incarnational passages into texts related to the Eternal Trinity. Yet, this is precisely what defenders of EG will do when they insist on treating John 5:26 as a proof text for EG. John 5:26 is an incarnational text, and to read it as an ontological endowment is misreading this verse, and thereby this is not a serious theological argument. Even some scholars, while supporting EG, will admit that John 5:26 refers to the Son's "messianic investiture" (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 1998, 2nd Ed., p. 325).

Therefore, when it comes to the inter-relationality of the Trinity (ad intra) Christians should not support the hierarchical, derivative, or subordinationist terms and concepts found in EG just because the confession or creeds support this view. God's Word explains the Trinity far better than any creed or confession can.