Robert Reymond and Eternal Generation - was: "NKJV, an ecumenical version"

[harald]

I just a few days ago received in the mail a book named "New King James Version - In the Great Tradition", by Arthur L Farstad. I had ordered it due to my being interested in Bible translation and translations, and at a reasonable price at that. Just some minutes ago I took a look into it, the back of it, where the names were listed of those involved in the project, whether as translators or consultants or editors etc. . I thought it might be interesting to some to learn how ecumenical a version the NKJV is in reality. To briefly say something I'd say the NKJV is reflecting a New Evangelical spirit. Many of the participants in the project were neo-evangelicals so-called. But to show the ecumenicalness of it I shall mention some "denominations" represented:

Southern Baptist
Reformed Presbyterian
Orthodox Presbyterian
Nazarene
Free Will Baptist
Lutheran
Mennonite
Free Church of Scotland
Brethren
Church of Christ
Reformed Baptist
Anglican
Eastern Orthodox
Fundamental Baptist
AoG
United Pentecostal Church

Then there were also some men of so-called "Bible Church", which I take to be fundamentalistic and dispensational, but not distinctly "fundamental Baptist" nor distinctly "Brethren". Also some affiliated with the Moody Bible Institute, which myself knows not how to classify.

Then I shall mention some known neo-evangelicals involved:

Harold Lindsell
Harold J Ockenga
Luis Palau
Bill Bright

And while I spotted many heretical men among the participants I shall only mention a few clear and obvious cases:

Robert L Reymond
Jerry Falwell
Tim F LaHaye
Luis Palau
John Wesley White (Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass.)
Thomas F Zimmerman (AoG General Superintendent)
Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ)
Jack Hayford
Peter E Gillquist (Eastern Orthodox priest)

All this taken together would to some extent explain the serious doctrinal downgrade of the NKJV in some places, most notably changing the familiar (but more importantly faithful to the original) wording "faith of Jesus Christ" (Geneva, KJV, Darby, YLT) to "faith IN Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22, 26b; Gal. 2:16, 3:22; Phil. 3:9). Also the altering of "faith of the Son of God" into "faith IN the Son of God" in Gal. 2:20. Another similar verse would be Eph. 3:12. This means the NKJV is seriously defective as to the doctrine of Justification, so much so as to support the popular but heretical gospel of evangelicalism so-called.


Harald

[wildboar]

So you trust the Anglicans more?

[Brandan Kraft]

Why is Robert Reymond a heretic?

[harald]

wildboar. I take it by Anglicans you mean the KJV. No, this was an assumption on your part. I do not trust the KJV more, but in the verses given at least the KJV is more faithful to the Greek, not in Rom. 3:26 however. My judgment has long been that the KJV translators were unregenerate men. Many factors indicate this. One is that I can never imagine regenerate men work for 7 years in submission to such ungodly translation rules as those of Bishop Bancroft. The consciences of those translators must indeed have been seared as with a hot branding iron.

Brandan. Reymond is way off on the eternal Divine Sonship of Christ Jesus, as shown by a critique of his systematic theology in the Journal of the Huntingtonian Press called "The Sinner Saved". I found it online and have a link to this number of the journal on my website. Not because of Reymond, but because of the importance of the Sonship which is given much space in the number. This is about what I know about Reymond, but I recognized the name when I saw it, and to be in error on Christ's Sonship is no light thing.



Harald

[wildboar]

I was certainly quite surprised when I found out awhile ago that Reymond denied the eternal generation of the Son. I was equally surprised at his interpretation of Romans 7 (as referring to the unregenerate) and although I knew he would most likely defend common grace I was hoping that he would have adressed the objections. I've emailed him about the last one and he hasn't sent me a response yet(he won't win the quick email response award that I've given to D. A. Carson, Maurice Robinson, David Engelsma, and Theodore Letis--that is at least before I got Letis so mad at me he stopped responding altogether...lol) Overall, however his systematic theology is still worth consulting and a pleasure to read. Of course I'm looking forward with much anticipation to the republication of Herman Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics. The first volume will be coming out soon with the second due out the beginning of next year Those portions which were previously left in dutch will be translated. I'm also looking forward to Bavinck. I have the first volume and it's excellent. They're releasing one a year for a total of four volumes. His wisdome far surpasses his successors.

As to the state of Reymond's soul, I'll leave that up to God. I prefer to address people as Christians unless they give me ample reason to think otherwise. This seems to have been the practice of the apostles. I don't recall any witch hunt in which each person was given a survey of doctrines and then called unregenerate if they responded incorrectly. That's not to say people shouldn't be called to repent of their error but they should be called to repent as brothers in Christ.

[Brandan Kraft]

I haven't studied the topic of eternal generation in depth like I should. Right now I believe that Christ has always been from eternity the Son in relationship to the Father. I do not believe Christ became "The Son", but that He has ALWAYS been The Son. If Christ has not always been the Son, then that means The Father has not always been "The Father".

Those who deny eternal generation today, I believe they do so only because of the semantics, am I correct? They drop the terminology, but embrace the concept. I can't imagine someone denying that Christ is eternal. From what I understand, those that drop the terminology "eternal generation" do so only because they hope to exalt Christ even more because they believe that terminology makes Christ sound like He was created - and we know this is not true!

Anyway, I do happen to have Reymond's Systematic Theology book. I haven't read that section about him denying Christ's eternal sonship. I'll definitely look into it.

Brandan

[harald]

Brandan, I can say quite the same for myself. I wish I was more well versed in this doctrine. But the rejection of Christ's eternal Divine Sonship on the part of some is not only a semantical thing. Semantics is probably also involved. I frankly do not know as for now what to think of the term "eternal begetting". It is not found in Scripture as such, and was coined later by some "church fathers" I believe. Some Old School Absolute Predestinarian Baptists, who on the whole seem orthodox, seem to deny the eternal Divine Sonship by saying that "Son" and "only begotten Son" mean that Christ is "Son" in consideration of His part in the eternal covenant. That the Son-ship relates to His being the Covenant Head of the election of grace. So I recall Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott to have believed, and myself have a hard time with such a notion. John the apostle in one of his epistles says Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father in truth (veracity) and love. I do not believe the term "Son" is used with respect to "the Word", Jesus, just for the sake of trying to teach humans something, but that "SON" is used because He who is so called is Son in truth and verity, not in some virtual and unreal manner. Likewise the Father is Father in truth and verity, not in some speculative sense. So basically I see Beebe's and Trott's notion as a denial of the true doctrine of Christ's Divine Sonship. Others may deny the Sonship in some other way, e.g. by teaching incarnational Son-ship. So did MacArthur at some time, but now appears to have changed his belief to the better. Some extreme KJV Onlyites are famous for denying the Sonship; so Riplinger, Ruckman, and Joseph Chambers (Pentecostal).

I have a hard time with the saying of some that the Son of God is in a constant process of being begotten by the Father. Some say Origen the heretic brought this notion, if I remember aright. The Scripture does not specifically state such about the only-begotten Son. I wonder how much of the expressions and terms involved are "feigned" or fabricated words (2Peter 2:3) which should be rejected as misleading.

Harald

[andrew_c_bain]

Wildboar wrote: "I was certainly quite surprised when I found out awhile ago that Reymond denied the eternal generation of the Son."


Robert L. Reymond writes:
"The New Testament teaches that the Father and the Son "send" the Holy Spirit, and that the Son "breathed" and "poured out" the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. But these expressions are descriptive of the Father's and the Son's soteric activity as well as the Spirit's submission to them in the economy of redemption and not of an inscrutable mysterious process transpiring eternally within the Trinity. (p332) [The] two additional propositions that the Son's essence is eternally generated by the Father and that the Spirit eternally and essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son, ... [are] beyond the deliverances of Scripture, ... these last two propositions should not be made elements of Trinitarian orthodoxy." (p341; Systematic Theology, 1998)




Reymond has made a most desperate attack (in the form of a defence) upon the doctrine of God's existence. Not only has he undone the doctrine of the Trinity -- flying in the very face of the Godhead -- but, his teaching directly murders God's eternal existence. We know nothing of God, but in the light of "the Father's and Son's soteric activity as well as the Spirit's to them in the economy of redemption." Yet, Reymond asserts that there is no reality in the Divine nature itself corresponding to this revealed soteric activity; indeed, he denies that in there is any sense whatsoever that Christ is eternally begotten, or that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. He writes that, in the case of the procession of the Holy Spirit, there is no description here "of an inscrutable mysterious process transpiring eternally within the Trinity." Arbitrary! Reymond has made God's revelation arbitrary, by disconnecting the workings of the Trinity with mankind, from the workings of the Trinity eternally. Where does this reasoning lead? If the revelation of the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit is only descriptive of God's relations with men, and not reflective of the nature or essence of the Godhead itself, then we know NOTHING of the attributes of God in Himself. By denying that God's economy of redemption reflects the essential and personal subsistence of the Godhead, Reymond has deprived man of any knowledge of God.



Armed with his own natural concept of "self-existence", Reymond judges the biblical truth of the Son's eternal generation -- Christ having eternally derived His essence from the Father -- to be incompatible with "self-existence". He writes, "the titles "Father" and "Son" must not be freighted respectively with the occidental ideas of source of being and essential superiority on the one hand and of subordination and dependency on the other ... to say that the Son ... was begotten out of the being of the Father by a continuing act of begetting on the Father's part ... [is] virtually denying to the Son the attribute of self-existence, an attribute essential to deity." (p325-6). I'd like to see what would happen if Reymond applied his own concept of "oneness" to the Trinity. Were he to do so, he may find that the idea of a Trinity seems to be "virtually denying" that God is One. So too, Reymond may struggle with the eternity of the Godhead, if he was to apply his concept of “self-existence” to an eternal Godhead. Reymond has his whole thinking back to front, for instead of accepting the truth of eternal generation, he first examines the idea based upon his own definitions of "subordinationism" and "self-existence", and then discards the truth that Christ derives His essence from the Father, as “virtually denying” His deity. What is my point? My point is that there is an assumption on the part of Reymond that he understands the concept of "self-existence" apart from the Bible, and thus he draws a false conclusion, positing that if the Son derives His essence from the Father, then the Son must be “inferior” and “subordinate”, and the Father must be “superior”.



But how does Reymond know this? I understand that the Son derives His essence from the Father, but why should I conclude that the Son I believe in is "inferior" and "subordinate"? God is entirely incomprehensible to me, except for His revelation, and nowhere in the Bible can I find the concept, that, if I believe that the Son derives His essence from the Father, then my Son must be "subordinate" or "inferior". Reymond claims that the truth of eternal generation is "beyond the deliverances of Scripture", but he uses no Scripture himself to demonstrate that Christ being self-existence and eternally begotten, are contradictory. Thus Reymond applies a standard to others, which he is not willing to apply to himself. Even in the midst of caution and circumspection, he unwarily condemns himself, for at no point, does he quote Scripture on this point. Reymond is a hypocrite, who's concepts of subordination and self-existence –-to use his own words—are "beyond the deliverances of Scripture", and by applying his own standard of “self-existence” to the eternal generation of the Son, he has called divine revelation to the bar of natural reasoning.



Yet, every true believer can learn of the doctrine of the eternal generation. Christ is "the only begotten Son,"(Jn1:18) "the only begotten of the Father,"(Jn1:14) who "was with God,"(Jn1:1) and "in the form of God, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God," (Phi2:6) who was God, "in the bosom of the Father,"(Jn1:18) "came out from the Father,"(Jn16:28) was sent of the Father,(1Jn4:14) in the Father, and the Father in Him, (Jn10:28) one with the Father, (Jn10:30) "the image of the invisible God,"(Col1:15) the Brightness of his Father's glory, the express Image of His essence, (Heb1:3). Yet, Reymond has reduced Christ's essence of Sonship to a "distinguishing property of filiation", so that several of those passages just quoted, would refer not to God in Himself, but only his temporal dealings with mankind. Questions soon begin to arise, such as, in Reymond’s mind, is there really any difference between the Father and the Son? The more one reads Reymond, the more one senses that there is an inherent conviction on his part, that Trinity is only a threefold denomination of one God, manifested in three distinct characters, with hardly any distinct personality at the bottom of each person, but merely slight "distinguishing properties". To say that the distinguishing property between the Father and the Son, is merely that one is more paternal than the other, does not account for Scriptural passages, such as Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 8. "I will declare concerning the statute of Jehovah: He said to Me, You are My Son. Today I have begotten You."(Psa2:7). What day? The day of eternity (which is one continued now) – Christ is eternally begotten. "Jehovah possessed me" says the Messiah "in the beginning of His way, before His works. I was set up from everlasting, from that which was before the earth. When there were no depths, I was brought forth...then I was at His side"(Prov8:22-24,30) Here, the Targum, the Syriac, and the Septuagint versions give us the meaning of all the varieties of expressions which have the same meaning as the English word, "begotten".



The Son was “set up from everlasting”. Now Reymond would allow that "the Son had glory with the Father" eternally and Christ"was before all things” eternally.Why then, is Christ not eternally begotten (“set up from everlasting”), eternally “the only begotten of the Father”, and eternally “out of the Father”? The Fatherhood of the Father and Sonship of the Son are eternal, and since the only knowledge we have been given of these relations is the Son “out of the Father”, this must be the actual in workings of the Trinity. After all, isn’t Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever? Otherwise, if we deny that the Son’s coming out of the Father is eternal, we are left with absolute atheism, and know nothing of the reality of relation subsisting among the Three themselves, who are One.



By reducing the relations between the persons of the Godhead, to the "paternity" of the Father, and "filiation" of the Son, Reymond must understand Christ as “the only begotten” to have only begun with His incarnation. The would mean that the Christ’s essence of being begotten (according to Reymond) has no more foundation in pure Deity or divine nature, than the hands, feet, eyes, ears and wings which are ascribed to God, after the manner of men, being merely names of economy, official service, and manifested relations toward men, and not essential to the Godhead. In fact, according to Reymond, were you to ascribe the procession of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as a representation of the inward working of the Trinity, then you are a heretic who has denied the deity (self-existence) of the Holy Spirit. He writes, "to set forth the ... assertion of the Holy Spirit's eternal procession from ... the Father and the Son ... [is to have] subordinated the Spirit to the Father and the Son not only in modes of operation but in essential subsistence as well ... [one has] denied thereby to the Holy Spirit the attribute of autotheotic self-existence."(p332). The would mean that the procession of the Holy Spirit (according to Reymond) has no more foundation in pure Deity or divine nature, than the hands, feet, eyes, ears and wings which are ascribed to God, after the manner of men, being merely names of economy, official service, and manifested relations toward men, and not essential to the Godhead.



Furthermore, to see Christ as “the only begotten” in a higher sense than the incarnation—to say that Christ is eternally, essentially and divinely begotten—according to Reymond, is to deny Christ’s deity. He writes, "the explanation ... [of] the Son acquiring his essence and personal subsistence from the Father through an eternal act of being begotten, and the Spirit acquiring his essence and personal subsistence from the Father and the Son through an eternal act of proceeding. ... [makes] God the Father alone autotheotic." It is easy to see the drift of Reymond's reasoning. He is saying that anyone who believes Christ is eternally begotten, is actually making the Father eternally superior to the Son, and denying that Christ is the self-existent Son of God. This returns to the first point I made about Reymond’s natural conceptions of “self-existence”. His argument implies, that he himself is entitled to comprehend not only the matter revealed, but also the manner of it, or altogether to reject the incomprehensible thing, as if he knew what "self-existence" was in itself. To affirm that Christ is begotten, and that the Spirit proceeds, in any other and higher sense than in temporal relations with men, is, by Reymond's doctrine, to affirm, that they are not God, but to make the Spirit "subordinate", "inferior", and "the Father alone autotheotic."



Once again, the person reading this should be reminded that, to deny the eternal generation of the Son, is to reduce Christ as “set up from everlasting”, as “the only begotten of the Father”, and as “out of the Father”, to mere temporal and arbitrary modes of speech describing nothing of God in Himself, but only his dealings with man. And this is absolute atheism.



It is criminal for any man to remain neutral on such a grand and weighty article as the Sonship of Christ, where His Sonship is defined as Him being "set up from everlasting" by the Father. At stake is our whole knowledge of God. Can a believer by good and necessary consequence learn of the Trinity in Himself, from reading of His dealings with men? If we deny this, then we lay a heavy charge against Jesus Christ. The Lord reproved the Sadducees for erring, not knowing the Scriptures touching the resurrection of the dead; however, in the passage adduced by him from the books of Moses, there is no mention at all made, in express words, letters and sounds, either of the dead or their resurrection, but only in sense, by means of good and necessary consequence, and connections of argument, and those too, by no means at first sight very obvious and open to everyone's perception. Perhaps the Sadducees claimed that Christ’s doctrine of the Resurrection was “beyond the deliverances of Scripture”? Mr Reymond, you stand with the Sadducees, by attempting to reduce the knowledge contained in the counsel of God. Robert, may the Lord open your eyes, that you may perceive, and shake the viper from your hand into the fire, before you drop down dead!



Andrew C. Bain

http://www.Godnoliar.com

[foundinHim]

I have Reymond's Systematic Theology and find it very helpful . I looked for his help especially when dealing with some JW's . I thought he was on-the-money regarding the doctrine of the Trinity . I will have to read more of his material regarding his alleged " heresy " . It's not the first time I have heard of it . I say do not throw the baby out with the bathwater . John Robbins site had a favorable review of his work and Reymond has several articles on the the Trinity Review . He's quite good on many things . We should be put on-call for suspected heresies or errors . However do not go too far in rejecting everything from the man .

I too want to get Hoksema's major work . I have a lot of other things from his hand , and that of his son , Hanko and Englesma to boot .

[foundinHim]

Mr. Bain is right there with the out-on-the-limb crowd . ... " Clark being unregenerate couldn't disentangle himself... " . ! What ?! And Richard Bacon gets dishonorable mention from him as well . I go with Wildboar's comments earlier about the fact that we are not to go around judging someone's eternal state .

[Brandan Kraft]

Mr. Bain spammed just about everyone with this latest tirade of his including RC Sproul!!! I thought I banned him LOL. He's not interested in dialog at all from my past experience with him. He's just interested in slamming individuals - even writing up something on the internet about his little (somewhere around 10-12 yrs old) arminian sister!

See ya later Andrew. You're outta here!

[Mickey]

But I thought Everybody loves Reymond! Get it...like the TV...aaaa nevermind.

[ray kikkert]

Mr. Bain spammed just about everyone with this latest tirade of his including RC Sproul!!! I thought I banned him LOL. He's not interested in dialog at all from my past experience with him. He's just interested in slamming individuals - even writing up something on the internet about his little (somewhere around 10-12 yrs old) arminian sister!

See ya later Andrew. You're outta here!

Try going to his website. You will hear him "preaching" in the background. It reminded me of the little 4 year old pip squeak down the street who tried to act like the minister at Sunday service. In a thought..... pathetic and in need of a kick to the behind

[Brandan Kraft]

Ray, thanks for pointing this out. I actually have spoken with him, and he sounds nothing like this! His attempt at making himself sound like a "preacher" is pretty pathetic. I think he's just desperate for attention.

Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

I personally agree 100% with Reymond's position challenging the common view of eternal generation; if some minds are determined to say that makes me anti-Trinitarian I cannot change that. On the other hand, if one is willing to reason this matter through from scripture, that individual will come to see that the tri-unity position on this is not contrary to the Triune God and his transcendent glory!

[Brandan Kraft]

I've never heard anything so phony in my life. He sounds as corny as a televangelist! How sad. Here he also advocates the conditionalist doctrine of common wrath as well. See attached...

[ray kikkert]

I've never heard anything so phony in my life. He sounds as corny as a televangelist! How sad. Here he also advocates the conditionalist doctrine of common wrath as well. See attached...

I think my favorite part there Darth is how he says "condemnation". I felt the earth move there


Anyways,I do not have any works of Reymond available. I am as much in the dark here as any on the subject at hand. We have some saying one thing. Bill agrees with Reymond.

Can we lay out simply the basic points of agreement and disagreement with what Reymond says so that all can get a sense of what the major points of contention there are for the benefit of all here? Unless it is not that important in the first place and just mere play on words.

[wildboar]

Here is a response by Robert Reymond to his critics: http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospect...tarianism.html
Reymond argues that there is a distinction between Reformed and Nicene Trinitarianism. I did not find his arguments convincing but it will give you a good idea of what the differences are. Every good reformed Christian should probably have a New Systematic Theology by Reymond on his bookshelf despite its errors here and in regards to Romans 7.

[Brandan Kraft]

I think my favorite part there Darth is how he says "condemnation". I felt the earth move there

*chuckles*

Anyways,I do not have any works of Reymond available. I am as much in the dark here as any on the subject at hand. We have some saying one thing. Bill agrees with Reymond.

I have Reymond's Systematic theology book. I'll take a look at this section tonight, DV.

[Robert R. Higby]

For me, to claim that the submission of the Son to the Father in the economies of creation and redemption proves something about God's SELF EXISTENCE TRANSCENDENT OF ALL TIME AND SPACE, this is arrogance and speculative theology of the highest degree! The manner in which the Triune God has determined to act in history (the continuity of time and space) does not reveal to us the nature of who the Trinity is transcendent of space, time, law, and sin. That is where we need to go further than either Rome, the Eastern Church, or the Reformers!