1 Heb 1:5-6, 8; ² Jn 1:14, 18; ³ Jn 15:26; Gal 4:6

In our previous study, we saw that the there are three persons in the Godhead, but these three are "one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties."

What do the "personal properties" refer to? We see from WLC 10, that the framers of the catechism intend the expression to refer to the subsistential relationship between the persons in the Godhead in order to explain how there can be one essence but three persons. Or how it can be that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet the Father is not the Son and the Son not the Holy Spirit etc.

Essentially, what our catechism teaches us is that God the Father is not-begotten or proceeding, God the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and God the Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

This doctrine has a very ancient beginning and found expression in the confession of the Church as early as the council of Nicea (A.D. 325; as pertaining to the Son) and the council of Constantinople (A.D. 381; as pertaining to the Holy Spirit). The Nicene Creed which took its final form since the Council of Toledo (A.D. 589; which affirm a slight modification respecting the Holy Spirit), declares:

It is to be admitted that this formulation may give the impression that the Son and the Holy Spirit does not have eternal self-existence. But if they do not have self-existence, how could they be equally and fully God?

For this reason, and for the opinion that the exegetical support for the doctrine is not unassailable, some modern systematic theologians such as Warfield, Boetner, Buswell and Reymond have called for the doctrine (of eternal generation and eternal procession) to be discarded.

It is said that John Calvin, during the time of the Reformation, was also opposed to the doctrine. However, it is far more likely that he was simply unwilling to join in the frivolous speculations arising from it. He says, for example:

And there appears to be places, where Calvin, zealous to guard the full deity of the Son the Son and the Spirit, and the unity of the divine essence, appears opposed the ancient formulations; and therefore has been raised as the authority for denouncing the ecumenical creeds.

I am personally persuaded that Calvin, rather than denying the creeds, affirmed them but corrected some misconceptions. Calvin made a distinction between the personality and the essence of each person of the Godhead. Simplistically speaking, he would not agree to a derivation of essence, but he would agree to a derivation of personality. He writes, for example: We confess that the Son since he is God, exists of himself, but not in respect of his Person; indeed, since he is the Son, we say that he exists from the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning; while the beginning of his person is God himself. Those orthodox writers who formerly spoke concerning the Trinity applied this name only to the persons, since it would have been not only an absurd error but even the sheerest impiety to embrace the essence in this distinction. (ICR 1.13.25).

I believe the judicious reader will agree that Calvin did not reject the old formulation as claimed.

But now, what is actually more important is: Does the Scripture teach the eternal generation of the son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. I believe so.

First, from the fact that the first person in the Godhead is designated the Father and the second is designated the Son in the Scripture, we see have the relationship of begetting implied.

hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (Jn 5:26). This verse, together with the fact that Christ is pre-existent (Jn 1:1) and the fact that the apostle Paul speaks of Christ as being the "firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15), can only be satisfactorily resolved under the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Of course, we must not draw too strong a parallel between eternal generation and natural human generation. The idea of eternal generation must be taken to be an anthropomorphic theological expression by which God would have us understand how Christ can be same in essence as the Father and yet has a different subsistence.