The teaching that the Son of God was begotten from God before eternity is denied by some Christians. An Example of this is Wayne Jackson’s article on “Was Jesus the ‘Son of God’ Eternally?“. Wayne Jackson poses several arguments against the Orthodox teaching.
A few of his reasons are that “Begotten Is Not Eternal,” the teaching has “Contradictory Language,” eternal generation is “Mumbo-Jumbo Theology,” and that “Eternal Sonship (is) Not in Harmony With the Prophets.” I will deal with each of these and the rest of his objections in detail.
No tolerance for Christian Saint bashing
I will admit that I will not be very tolerant towards Wayne Jackson in this article because of his blatant disregard and disrespect for other Christians. An example of this is his statement:
Particularly, he (Speaking of Walvoord) declares, this has been “the main doctrine of the church, since the Council of Nicaea in 325” (39). What church? The church of the New Testament had receded into the shadows already.Wayne Jackson
Wayne Jackson is clearly saying that the members of the council of Nicaea are not Christians with this statement. This is absolutely absurd and is a slap in the face to what God’s people did for us. They expounded scripture and changed the world as we know it today. While God will have the world remember great Christian saints like Athanasius, Augustine, Eusebius and the host of others, I doubt anyone will remember Wayne Jackson a hundred years from now.
I would like to mention that he does not explain what the true nature of the Son of God; but, only ridicules the true doctrine. When one reads through his article it becomes clear that Wayne does not clearly know who Christ is. Not only that, he adamantly attacks Christians that have done much for Christianity. For that reason, Wayne Jackson will get no sympathy from me in this review. Below is the list of objections posed by Wayne Jackson. The text I refer to in this article can be found in the article Was Jesus the “Son of God” Eternally? By Wayne Jackson at christiancourier.com
Wayne Jacksons arguments against the Eternal Sonship of the Son of God
-
Origin and Growth of the Dogma
According to Wayne Jackson, the “Eternal Sonship” doctrine originated with Origen and Augustine. He states.
it appears to have had its most vocal introduction with Origen (c. 185-254), a scholar in Alexandria, whose mind, as someone has said, “shot off ideas like a Roman candle.”
…
Augustine (354-430) provided the notion with considerable notoriety.Wayne JacksonThe fact is that Christianity universally accepted the doctrine as it is an integral part of the Trinity. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians 6 [A.D. 110]), Justin Martyr (First Apology 23 [A.D. 151]), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 189]), Tertullian (Against Praxeas 7:1 [A.D. 216]), Hippolytus (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]), and many more Christian apologists taught this early in Christianity.
Wayne Jackson is clearly guilty of the fallacy of leaving out evidence. One simply needs to read the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Westminster Confession of Faith, Scots confession, Second Helvetic Confession, and nearly all Reformed, Roman Catholic, Greek orthodox, confessions known. He falsly tries to provide proof that Christians don’t teach this when in fact its a major doctrine of Christology from the beginning.
-
Eternal Existence, Yes — Eternal Generation, No
His second fallacy is the common fallacy people use against trinitarian theology. He says,
There is no biblical text that speaks of an “eternal generation” or an “eternal procession” of the pre-incarnate Christ.Wayne Jackson
And is it equally true that there is no Bible text that states the “Trinity” or the “pre-incarnation of Christ” either. The doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from plain texts in the Bible concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We call that deduction the “Trinity.” The same is the case for the “Eternal Sonship” of the Son of God.
-
A Father Precedes A Son
Another fallacy used against the belief in God and the Trinity is the belief that things are impossible. Wayne Jackson states,
If language is to have any discernible meaning at all, it is not possible to have both an eternal “son,” and an eternal “father,” for in the nature of the case, a “Father” is always perceived to be anterior (prior to) to his “son,” and a “son” subsequent to his “father.”Wayne Jackson
The fact of the matter is that this is perfectly possible with God. The Son can come from the Father and yet be equal to the Father and eternal God. The Bible has contradictory statements about God that are both equally true. For example, Matthew says,
With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God (Mar 10:27 NAS)
Yet the writer of Hebrews says,
it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18 NAS)
Both these statements are true. There is nothing impossible with God and it is impossible for God to lie. It’s the same argument my science teacher told me in college. He said, if nothing is impossible with God, then can God kill Himself? It’s an absurd statement because the definition of God is an eternal being that has no beginning or end. Wayne Jackson doesn’t understand that the nature of God is incomprehensible to a finite mind.
Thus, if God is the “father” of the pre-incarnate son, the son cannot be eternal; hence, must have been created — as the heretic Arius alleged, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm.Wayne Jackson
Neither the Jehovah Witnesses nor the Arians taught that the Son was begotten before eternity. It would be nice if Wayne provided a quote of Jehovah witness or Arian teachings that teach this; but, he can’t because the Jehovah witnesses and the Arians never taught that the Son was begotten from eternity. Nor does the teaching that the Son is begotten from eternity allude to, necessitate, or even come close to teaching that the Son was created before eternity.
-
Begotten Is Not Eternal
Just saying “begotten is not eternal” does not prove the case. More than making statements is required for proving an argument. Jackson says,
If it is the case that the Second Person of the Godhead was “begotten,” he is not “eternal God,” for eternality is an intrinsic quality of deity; God is from “everlasting to everlasting”Wayne Jackson
To teach the Son was begotten before Eternity does not lead to the conclusion that Christ is not eternal at all. The same argument can be made for John 1 where John says,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1 NAS)John 1:1 says the Word was with God and at the same time was God. These are 2 separate meanings that contradict. Yet they are both equally true. Can a wheel be stopped and be in motion at the same time? Yes, with God they can be. But to the human mind it’s impossible. When it comes to the nature of God, it is impossible for an finite mind to fully comprehend infinite qualities. No more than we can fly out to infinite space and reach the farthest point.
So Wayne Jackson resorts to name calling and character assassination. Yet another fallacy. He says,
If a doctrine, by necessary implication, negates the deity of Jesus Christ, can one be considered faithful who espouses it?Wayne Jackson
So if you disagree with Wayne Jackson, you simply are not “faithful” to Christ. So Origen, Augustine, and any other person in church history who taught the Eternal Sonship of Christ are not “faithful” and no church at all, since the church “receded into the shadows already.” Apparently, Wayne Jackson does not know the church, God’s people, or even who God is, let alone the Son of God.
-
Contradictory Language
I believe I already pointed out that the Bible contains contradictory statements that are equally true. Wayne Jackson again shows his ignorance of this in the following point.
The dogma is discredited logically by self-contradiction. To contend that the Son was “eternally begotten” is a manifest contradiction of terms. It is the equivalent of saying, “Christ had an eternal beginning.” Can an object “begin,” and not have been begun?Wayne Jackson
First of all, there is contradiction with the Trinity to teach the Son is begotten from eternity and the Son being eternal. God can do all things; however, Can God Kill himself (meaning to stop existing)? Can God Lie? or can God sin? If God created everything Good, why is there Sin? If the Word was with God, how can He be God at the same time? There are many truths in the Bible that are paradoxical in nature. This is because God is incomprehensible to a finite mind.
-
Mumbo-Jumbo Theology
Wayne Jackson persists with the same argument that is repackaged into a different way of expressing it. He says,
Advocates of the “eternal Son” dogma are forced to resort to some of the most discombobulated jargon to explain their position.
If language is to have any discernible meaning at all, it is not possible to have both an eternal “son,” and an eternal “father,” for in the nature of the case, a “Father” is always perceived to be anterior (prior to) to his “son,” and a “son” subsequent to his “father.”Wayne JacksonAgain, I would like to point out that the Word was with God and the Word was God. Two separate persons but one God. It is obvious to me that he does not understand the Trinity at all.
Calling a teaching “mumbo-jumbo” does not make it “mumbo-jumbo.” Wayne needs to actually explain why it is “mumbo-jumbo.” The quotes he took from W. Clarke and McClintock that he cited are clear and make perfect sense. God is not subject to time. Anything that has to do with God’s nature is outside of time. Why? Because God created time when He created the planets and everything in existence.
Everything about God is eternal. This includes Gods thoughts, words, and spirit. Unlike Wayne Jackson, God thinks and then speaks. God is order. He first has a thought which in turn produces His Word. In that order. This is the essence of the Trinity. I’m sorry Wayne does not get it. It’s not a difficult concept.
-
Eternal Sonship Not in Harmony With the Prophets and Psalm 2 Incompatible With Eternal Sonship
Again, yet another confusion an the same level about the fact that two conflicting realities can be both true. Wayne Jackson states,
Later Isaiah prophetically declared, “a child is born, a son is given” (9:6). Does not this connect the role of being “son” with that of the birth of the child? If not, how can one ever have confidence in the meaningful interpretation of language? And if the “son” of this text is an “eternal son,” would this also imply that the “child” is an “eternal child”?Wayne Jackson
The main problem with his thinking is that he is clearly teaching that the man of Christ and the Word of God are two separate entities. That the man is saying “I am the Son of God” while the Word is saying “I am not the Son of God.” This is absurd. Christ did not have two persons but one person. The Christian doctrine of Christ teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man inseparably united as one being. One simply needs to ask, How is it possible for an infinite being to be inseparably united to a finite being. All one can say is,
With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
(Mat 19:26 NAS)They are two conflicting realities that are both true. It’s the same as saying a wheel is stopped and yet spinning at the same time. There is no possible way a human mind can grasp the depth of God.
-
The Logical Consequence
The conclusion Wayne Jackson comes to, as usual, relies on the human mind to be able to logically comprehend the nature of God, which is impossible. He says,
As observed earlier, the logical consequence of the concept of “eternal generation” is that there was a time when the Second Person of the Godhead did not exist — though most who advocate the doctrine repudiate the implication of the teaching.Wayne Jackson
Unfortunately, in reality and in life, there are many things that the human mind cannot reason. We have to rationalize them. An example of this is the square root of negative 1. There is no way logically to square root negative 1. Yet, the square root of negative 1 comes up in math equations all the time.
So what do we do. Do we say, “the square root of negative 1 does not exist, so I will ignore it or mock it and tell everyone it’s illogical”? Not at all. We rationalize it and call it an “imaginary number.” Do I say, “imaginary numbers are mumbo-jumbo math.” Of course not. That would be absurd. Only a brute with very low intelligence would make such a statement.
The unfortunate conclusion to Wayne Jacksons theology
It is clear from Wayne Jacksons article that Wayne Jackson has no idea who God is. I feel sorry for the poor Christians that were warped by his teachings. Wayne Jacksons teaching is not Christian trinitarian theology at all. All I can get from his teaching is that Christ has two personalities: One of the Son of God who was born, and one of the Word of God who is eternal. Wayne is clearly an Apostate, if he ever believed in Christ in the first place.
Further Reading on the the doctrine that Christ was Begotten from Eternity.
The Denial of the Eternal Sonship