I am truly blessed to have studied under the outstanding faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, whom God has used to deepen my love for God and his Word. The completion of this thesis is the capstone of more than eight years of painstaking study. I am grateful to my fellow students who convinced me that residential study is the irreplaceable model of theological education.
Two men received special recognition for their contributions to my theological education: Sam Emadi and Colin Smothers. Tom Nettles, who generously guided and guided me in the independent study of Gill that gave rise to the fifth chapter of this dissertation. Together we grew in knowing the Lord, and I dedicate this dissertation to her because of her unwavering commitment to its completion.
Along the way, she has seen me through many seasons, the sublime highs and the desperate lows. They have cheered me up along the way and brought so much joy to my life.
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of the eternal Son of God is indeed such a field of study. In Gill's The Doctrine of the Trinity, he addressed the use of unscriptural words directly.
Gill’s biblical and theological demonstration of eternal generation relied primarily on his exegesis and theological reasoning from three texts, Micah 5:2,
Gill's biblical and theological demonstration of eternal generation relied primarily on his exegesis and theological reasoning from three texts, Micah 5:2,. The meaning of the passage then is that Christ must derive the glorious origin of his birth from a very remote antiquity - that is, from the time when God, after rejecting Saul, established a king and a royal family over his people founded - which was done in David; who was of Bethlehem, and was also the author of the tribe and family of Christ: or, indeed, of Abraham himself, who was the first father and progenitor of the race of Israel.189. Gill did not think this idea plausible, since the text speaks of Christ's "going forth."
Furthermore, it could not be a reference to the decree that Christ would come, because it could be said of anyone born in Bethlehem. Finally, Gill rejected the idea that this text refers to Christ's appearances in the Old Testament "in a human form" because they cannot be described as eternal.190. In lieu of these options, Gill proposed that Micah 5:2 refers to either the Son's works of grace in the eternal covenant or to his eternal lineage.
According to the way this text was “commonly interpreted,” it revealed that Christ “is the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a person distinct from him; The eternal Word that came from him and was with him from eternity and is truly God. The phrases express the eternity of his divine nature and person.” Thus, the text is divided into two parts: "the first part of the text presents his human birth", while the latter speaks of his "divine generation". Whereas Gill had previously had difficulty applying the plural "go forth" to the generation of the Son, he now said that the plural expressed "his brilliance and inexpressibility".191. Gill reminded readers of his Body of Doctrinal Divinity that he did not think this text was a proof of eternal generation in his earlier book The Doctrine of the Trinity.
Since Gill had already proved that Christ was to be considered a Son before his work as Mediator, Gill could claim that this text spoke to his eternal Sonship: “these words are a complete proof of the eternal existence of Christ; or else these things would not be so early predicted of him and his existence, under the relation and character of the Son of God, and that preceding his exits in a mediocre manner; as proved before.”. Gill then asserted that the eternal generation was the foundation of all the Son's exits, appealing to the distinction between the Son's human and divine birth, the idea of. Yet I do not see otherwise than that the divine lineage of Christ can be included in those exits; and be the first and chief, and the foundation of the others;.
Thus Gill admitted that he had changed his mind from his earlier work on the Trinity and now considered Micah 5:2 as biblical proof of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Gill consistently interpreted Psalm 2:7 as proof of eternal generation, making relevant exegetical and theological observations in Doctrine and Covenants.
Gill consistently interpreted Psalm 2:7 as a proof of eternal generation, making pertinent exegetical and theological observations in The Doctrine of
Gill directly interpreted the remainder of verse 7 as an affirmation of Christ's eternal sonship: “The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; today I have begotten you.”197 In support of this reading, Gill argued that in the context of Psalm 2, the appeal to the Son of Christ showed the utter futility and sinfulness of any attempt to hinder the kingdom of God. In a word, the Psalm reveals the Sonship of Christ “to show the greatness and perfection of the Person spoken of in the context; and so to aggravate the wickedness of his enemies; since the King they opposed is none other than the natural and proper Son of God.”198 Furthermore, Gill argued that the text was cited for similar use in Hebrews 1:5 to reveal “the glory of his nature, his greatness. person and superiority over the angels."199. In his Exposition, Gill explained the nature of the Sonship of Christ in contrast to some of the Socian interpretations described above.
Christ is not Son "by creation, like angels and men; nor by adoption, as saints; nor by office, as civil magistrates; nor by virtue of his incarnation or resurrection; nor because of God's great love for him." In contrast, "he is the true, proper, natural and eternal Son of God". That is, he is Son by nature. The] act of begetting refers not to the nature, not to the office, but the person of Christ; not to his nature, not to his divine nature, which is common with the Father. Owen used the quotation from Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5 to contrast the lineage of the Son with that of angels: Owen, Vindiciæ Evangelicæ, in WJO, 12:241–42.
Gill again rejected many of the Socian justifications for Christ's sonship and other misconceptions, most notably the idea that the essence of the Son was produced. Gill used the term "eternal now" in the Trinity, citing all of the above texts in support: Isaiah 43:13, Micah 5:2, and Daniel 12:9. Gill had established this hermeneutical rule for interpreting Psalm 2:7 at least as early as the Doctrine of the Trinity in 1731.
The reason for the appearance (phanerōseōs) and declaration a posteriori because he is made known by it (as Paul interprets when he says that "Christ was declared [horisthenta] to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead", Rom .. 1:4 ) according to the use of Scripture by which things are said to be made or born when they appear (Prov. 17:17). Because, then, the resurrection was an infallible proof of his divinity and eternal sonship, the Holy Spirit, with the psalmist, could join the two together, and refer to the eternal generation as much as to his manifestation (which must be done in the resurrection). Following an Orthodox Reformed model of exegesis, this interpretation provided Gill with not only a consistent Trinitarian reading of the many texts in which the Son of Christ is proclaimed throughout the canon, but also provided him with a polemic.
Directly to the point, Maastricht stated: “Some of the Socinians relate it only to the resurrection; others more properly to the eternal communication of essence; and others on both, but especially on. 206 The Racist Catechism cited the quotation of Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 as a reason that Psalm 2:7 could not have eternal generation in mind, since "Paul quotes this passage to prove the resurrection of Christ." Rees, The Racovian Catechism, 72. Muller explains how the Socinians used this text against the idea of the Son's deity and how the Reformed orthodox responded to their interpretations.
Another text that Gill had not always affirmed as a proof of eternal generation was In The Doctrine of the Trinity he wrote, “[a]s for
Using the terminology of the Reformed orthodox, Gill defined the relative possession of the Son by the term eternal generation. Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classic Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). In the first generation, the Father inexpressibly communicates or gives possession of the divine essence to the Son.
Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Instead, Calvin presented an understanding of the Son's aseity in which he possesses the divine essence of himself like the Father. 27. When speaking of the Son in the divine essence, he is of himself: to speak of him, however, distinct from the Father, he is of the Father.
In his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin approached the eternal generation after establishing the Son's consubstantiality with the Father. In distinguishing the persons, eternal generation denotes the "personal property" of the son and follows the divine order of the Godhead. Besides distinguishing the Son in his personal property, the eternal generation secured the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father by a.
This is not because the Son is first in the order of the Trinity, but because it is the lineage of the Son. Gill's assertion of the Son's eternal descent prompted him to explain how descent could be conceived of as eternal. For Turretin, the communication of essence, understood in accordance with God's nature, was central to his definition of the Son's descent from the Father.
Regarding generation and individuality, Gill's defense of the Son's independence and equality deserves further attention. For Gill this meant that when he speaks of the Son as God, he is of himself and independent. Gill understood eternal generation as an immanent act in God whereby the Father generates the person of the Son.
