The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-11-15
THE ETERNAL GENERATION of the SON
BY W. R. GORDON, S. t. D.

THE ETERNAL GENERATION of the SON
BY W. R. GORDON, S. t. D.
Let US now notice the reasons why it is be
lieved that the phrase "Son of God" and "tht
only begotten" refer exclusively to the God
head of Christ.
1. It seemingly indicates confusion Of
ideas, and an ill adaptation of words, to af
firm that the same nature is appropriately
called both "Son of man." and "Son oi
God" We do not forget that Adam is call.
ed the son of God, but it must be remember.
ed he was not the son of man, but the father
of the race. In the same sense with Adam,
Christ could not be called the Son of God,
because Adam was not the offspring Of hu-
manity, neither did he exist in previous
state; Jesus, the second Adam, however, was
born, and, unlike the first man, was Son
of humanity, partaker of our nature, which
nature can never, in any case, have double
paternity, or derivation from two originals
so widely apart as the Holy One and the
sinful one.
2. The Jews never found fault with Christ
for calling himself the "Son Of man" for
they understood him to refer to himself as q
human being; but they found great fault
with him for using the phrase "Son of God, :"
as applicable to himself, because they there
by understood him to claim equality with
God; and although they attempted to stone
him for this supposed blasphemy, Christ never
said they mistook his meaning. If, there.
fore, we would hold our Redeemer innocent
of design in making a false impression, in
nocent of dishonesty in refusing to remove
one if made, innocent Of the guilt Of a quib
bling trickster in allowing his enemies to be
under grievous mistake honestly and fairly
made, without correcting it, then it seems
clear that the phrase "Son of God" must
exclusively refer to his divine nature.
8. Express declarations of Scripture prove
this point. Thus the text, "In. this was
manifested the love of God toward US, be-
cause that God sent his only begotten Son
into the world" necessarily implies that he
must have borne this relation to the Father
before he came into the world; otherwise
the language could not be justified without
showing that bis humanity existed before it
was born. Our brethren of the opposite
opinion tell US that the Father sent the WORD
into the world, which the apostle simply calls
4" the only begotten Son." after union with
the humanity peculiarly begotten. But who
does not see that had such been the case, in
spiration could have just as easily said SO, as
our brethren who are not content to allow
our doctrine to be expressed by the wording
of the Holy Ghost? Whom did God send?
{" The Word," say our brethren. His only
begotten Son." says John. We know that
the Divine Word was sent, but this sustained
the relation of only begotten Son to the
Father, before he was sent. Names and pro-
nominal phrases are always descriptive Of the
persons to whom they are applied; but the
phrase "only begotten Son." as descriptive
of the One sent, was applied to Christ before
hs came into the world; therefore it must
refer to his deity, and not to his humanity.
To prove that this phrase accurately described
the relation which the Word held to the
Father in his preexistent state, we have sim.
ply to quote the Baptist-"No man hath
seen God at any time: the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." Let it be remembered
that this was uttered when Christ was thirty
years old, and that John was careful in the
use of the tense of the verb descriptive of
the existence of the "Son of God," as to
time and place. This is decisive; for no one
can pretend that the infant Jesus, born Of
the Virgin, and subsequently grown to the
proportions of manhood, was in the bosom OF
the Father, either before his birth, or during
his life, or after his death; for when he as
cended, it was to sitat the right hand of God.
Without quoting other passages, we rest
on this to,prove that the "only begotten
Son." as such, existed before the human ma.
ture of Christ had being. This made clear,
it will follow that as God is Interchangeable,
he must have been an eternal Father; but
this specific relation implies an eternal Son,
for the adjective qualities the relation, and
not the existence of the Deity. He is in
deed to us father, but not an eternal Faith.
er, because our sonship began in time; where.
as that of Christ never began at all, but al
ways was. Such is the revealed fact; and
as doctrines are built on facts, ours on this
point is unavoidable, no matter what may be
our difficulties in understanding it, unless
that which we take to be fact can be proved
to be fiction. Our difficulties, and those of
our dissenting brethren must be reserved for
another paper.
ANGER cannot rest in the bosom where