There was a recent article that defended an interpretation of John 16:13 that doesn’t appeal to Eternal Processions. Here is an ongoing discussion regarding that article:

Spirit of Truth – The Council (spirited-tech.com)

 

EG Proponent:

i see some problems in it. first, the word “learned” is used. i don’t think any translations use that word nor am i aware of anyone in our tradition that uses it. we rather say “receive truth”. i suppose it can be analogously called “learned” if you add the negation of ignorance. we wouldn’t say the Spirit “learns” in the same sense we do. i wouldn’t use the word anyways tho. also we (EG proponents) can agree the language is “anthropomorphic” insofar as it’s using human categories to analogously speak of God. the analogy being that the Spirit receives truth in the sense that He is communicated the divine essence from the Father and the Son but not that He learns in time or is ever ignorant. that would be the analogy. but i don’t see what the analogy would be if you deny procession. this article seems to say “they’re not allowing for anthropomorphic language (which isn’t true) and thus they’re being inconsistent with their hermeneutic” but it doesn’t seem to give the analogous link in their own view.

so the question would still remain “in what sense does the Spirit receive truth from the Son (and Father)?”

TheSire:

1. I think the term learning is adequate because it’s basically eternal learning, then you’re taking that the essence is Simple thus what’s being communicated as “The Truth” Is information that is identical to God because simplicity. But I think that’s an interesting interpretation, but it has a few steps that it’s hard to see what historical grammatical usage can be shown.

2. I think it’s explained by the alternatives. In the anthropomorphic appeal it’s about Unity of the godhead as DA Carson holds to EG but holds the text is about the unity of the Godhead rather than what makes them distinct. That the persons don’t operate independent of one another.

EG Proponent:

reply obj. 1: if by eternal learning, you mean that the Spirit was at some point in ignorance. then we’d deny. and it seems like that is what is meant by the article: “For to learn ordinarily requires existing in a state of ignorance, or at least exist in a way that precedes possession of what is learned; and being timelessly omniscient, as the Spirit is, is in tension with the notion that there is anything for Him to learn in the first place!” this would overextend the analogy. the analogous connection would be that the Spirit receives truth from the Father and Son by virtue of being communicated the essence by the Father and Son (truth pertaining to knowledge and knowledge being an essential property of God). the disconnect in the analogy would be that for us to learn would mean to at some point be in ignorance, but the Spirit was never at any point in ignorance.

reply obj. 2: “unity of the Godhead” simpliciter, doesn’t seem to fulfill the relevant aspects of the analogy. the unity that the persons have is taken from the Father by the Son and then from the Son by the Spirit. it doesn’t seem like this interpretation can account for that part. i disagree with DA Carson. i’m not surprised that contemporary theologians aren’t prone to interpret texts in the way of EG because it’s not an emphasis of modern theology and a lot of people aren’t aware of it. or even if they are, they aren’t conscious of it practically. but historically EG is interpreted throughout john 14-16.

Jimmy Stephens:

this would overextend the analogy.

It’s not clear how receiving truth is different from learning generally and how communicating an essence is different from theosis.

The problem is that I can ad hoc label something not divinization of a creature by calling it something else, but that’s no reason to think there’s a difference.

truth pertaining to knowledge and knowledge being an essential property of God

Sounds like a concession to the article’s word choice, an unwitting concession right after trying to disagree with our verbage.

the disconnect in the analogy would be that for us to learn would mean to at some point be in ignorance, but the Spirit was never at any point in ignorance.

This is pure agreement with what we said, so this person sounds like they are talking out of both sides their mouth.
All-in-all, it sounds like the first “reply” is just to talk in circles and arrive at a concession what we said in the article except there’s just the denial that this analogy is hermeneutically problematic. That there is a paradox and not a contradiction to the Spirit’s eternal learning is admitted, but there’s no content addressing how that idea comes from any of the words, structure, or theological content of the text.

“The analogy” is ambiguous in his “reply obj. 2.” It’s also unclear what “objection” he has in mind, but as best I can make it, he spends this paragraph clarifying what he believes is missing from Carson’s interpretation. Putting aside the irony of accusing Carson of doctrinal ignorance when that just amounts to biographical ignorance (Carson is well-acquainted with the topic), my complaint is that this paragraph really only amounts to saying that if the passage teaches the replier’s version of Eternal Generation, Carson’s interpretation falls short. But why should we think that Carson falls short and that there’s any such Eternal Generation doctrine in the text in the first place?

Scolding us for not accounting for a component of Eternal Generation begs the question that Eternal Generation is in whole or in part in the passage in the first place! That was what we went to length to challenge Eternal Generation proponents to defend beyond just assuming or just saying so.

This open question is answered in the article. Three alternatives to Eternal Generation were given: anthropomorphism, mystery, and theophany.

i suppose it can be analogously called “learned” if you add the negation of ignorance.

Despite inconsequential quibbling, I take this to be the only substantial takeaway from the first seven, prefatory sentences. This merely concedes exactly what the article says. To wit, Eternal Generation proponents need the omniscient Spirit to learn, so they need it to be a Biblically tenable paradox and not a contradiction. Can our interlocutor offer a reason to think one over the other by exegeting the passage?

Unfortunately, only speculation follows – namely, speculation about what “analogous link” Christ anthropomorphizes in the text, granting Christ’s teaching on the Spirit in John 16:13 is an anthropomorphism. There is so very much bumbling mistakenness in this response – let’s try to be thorough.

– Strike one: no reason is given for an anthropomorphic reading other than to equivocate the ontological category of analogy (how God can be attributes in common with creation) with the literary device of anthropmorphism (a figure of speech). One can speak anthropomorphically of women’s underwear even though they possess no divine nature in virtue which holiness an ontic analogy is required to talk about them at all. One can speak non-anthropomorphically of God (e.g., “God exists”), but that literal statement, as some might call it, is no less dependent on the metaphysical backing of analogical predication. In summary, he confuses ontology with grammar.

-Strike two: no reason is given why the anthropomorphism cannot just be mysterious. Why do we need to explain the link at all? Here, I submit two predictions.

First, my opponent won’t be able to answer that question because, on top of probably never having considered it (a judgment I make based on the bumbling nature of his response over all), there are plenty of examples historically where classical theist Christians prefer mystery over speculative model building to putatively explain “the analogous link.”

Second, if we investigate any such examples – passages where God is spoken of anthropomorphically (given the traditional classical theist interpretation) but where “the analogous link” is something beyond human comprehension. God’s repenting of His own actions in Genesis 6 or His “back” showing in Exodus 33 offer two places where classical theists have no meaningful “analogous link” to offer, and Thomists have even less than nothing to offer.

In short, our detractor failed to pay attention to the mysterian alternative in the article and now looks silly asking a question the article answered, as if a chess opponent urging us to take our move so they can go when it’s already their turn.

– Strike three: no reason is given why concepts like procession, the divine essence, its communication, and so forth are even on Christ’s mind, let alone form “the analogous link” to Christ’s anthropomorphism. Remember, we’re granting an anthropomorphic reading for the sake of counting these last two strikes. This strike is just to point out the loaded, almost arrogant nature of our detractor’s question.

I repeat: why think Eternal Generation is even on Christ’s mind? The “truth” in context is a salvific enlightenment for the church, not divine ontology. Christ hasn’t been giving a systemmatics class on the Trinity. This is comparable to someone coming to Genesis, the history of creation, for the history of their shoelaces, or how [Lutheran theologian interpreted eschatology.]

I repeat: after it has been established that Christ is even teaching something explicit about the ontological Trinity, our Eternal Generation proponent friends still have the further burden of showing that the teaching involved requires of necessity procession, et al.

To borrow one of my favorite lines from a renowned Batman entry, good luck.

– Strike four: Carson explicitly answers this question. The intratrinitarian unity of Members (manifest in Their) working out the salvation of God’s people is the link someone could infer, given it can be shown Christ is speaking anthropomorphically.

At this point, our friend has struck out. He should go back to the article, reread, and return to address the challenge therein instead of replying with quibbling that results in just conceding how we frame the topic and then asking a loaded question. However, for fun and to make the point stick deeper, I’d like to raise the stakes. Let’s introduce another alternative our Eternal Generation proponents must rule out if there view is to be inherited from John 16.

You see, yet another explanation of what Christ is saying is that he means to produce social trinitarianism, not Eternal Generation. On this take, the Spirit’s interaction with Father and Son, specifically the Spirit’s receiving of salvific truth to bring us on the Son’s behalf, is not an order of primordial generation (as Lane Tipton calls it), but an order of social interaction – full stop. The Spirit is not communicated the divine essence, but rather shares it without need for its communication, and is distinguished (for us) by His distinct will and role which has counterparts in the Father and Son in redemption history.

What reason can the Eternal Generation proponent provide for thinking this alternative, social trinitarianism, to his view fails alongside anthropomorphism, mystery, and theophany?

TheSire:

I also think it is unfair to suppose that modern theologians just have different focus (which is somewhat true but it isn’t necessarily bad). Augustine would agree with your interpretation. Ironically in fear of Jimmy’s interpretation being the alternative but believing only the Son has taken on created properties. But John Chrysostom isn’t a modern interpreter, and he gave an interpretation basically the same as Carson’s:

 

For since He had told them, that ‘He shall teach you, and bring to your remembrance’ John 14:26, and shall comfort you in your afflictions, (which He Himself did not,) and that it is expedient for you that I should depart John 16:7, and that He should come, and, ‘now you are not able to bear’ John 16:12, but then ye shall be able, and, that He shall lead you into all truth John 16:13; lest hearing these things they should suppose the Spirit to be the greater, and so fall into an extreme opinion of impiety, therefore He says, He shall receive of Mine, that is, whatsoever things I have told you, He shall also tell you. When He says, He shall speak nothing of Himself, He means, nothing contrary, nothing of His own opposed to My words. As then in saying respecting Himself, I speak not of Myself John 14:10, He means that He speaks nothing beside what the Father says, nothing of His own against Him, or differing from Him, so also with respect to the Spirit. But the, of Mine, means, of what I know, of My own knowledge; for the knowledge of Me and of the Spirit is one.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 78 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)

 

It is mistaken to assume modern theologians don’t consider such and especially given EFS debates that have occurred. 

There also remains for the Thomists the issue of the persons being ‘subsistent relations’. So, you’ll have to reject Thomistic view of simplicity for another perspective. Which is fine, but that just seems to leave you in that dilemma until resolved.

EG Proponent:

i think the crucial mistake is the confusion about the use of analogous language when talking about God anthropomorphically . which leads me to wonder if jimmy is a clarkian? in which case i would understand why there’s this huge disconnect. but otherwise, there shouldn’t be a problem. when we predicate about God anthropomorphically, we do so analogously. meaning there’s some things in the analogy that are like how God is and other thing that are not. so we can say, with Jesus, that the Spirit receives truth from the Son, in the sense that he is communicated the divine essence to by the Father and the Son but not in the sense that He was at some point ignorance. jimmy doesn’t allow for analogous language. he accused me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth for making proper negations. that’s the issue. he seems to think anthropomorphic means he doesn’t have to do exegesis: “no reason is given why the anthropomorphism cannot just be mysterious. Why do we need to explain the link at all?” and “if we investigate any such examples – passages where God is spoken of anthropomorphically (given the traditional classical theist interpretation) but where “the analogous link” is something beyond human comprehension.”

then he appeals to some texts where he thinks we do the same thing. but i deny that we do that there.

Jimmy Stephens:

 

This response is troubling because it fails to address any of the objections I provided. First, my opponent claims that I bar Christians from analogical language (about God). Anyone who reads my content sees right away, this is like accusing me of loving taxation. Surely my opponent has overwhelming evidence for his accusation to make up for how much I use and condone analogical theological predication, yes?

No, he goes on to restate (his version of) Eternal Generation as if restating the doctrine is a reason to think I impugn analogical predication. I note here a psychological factoid, that people who have failed to investigate their own beliefs and whatever reasons for them exist (or don’t) often confuse a restatement of their pet doctrines for an inditement of its detractors.

Yes, obviously, an Eternal Generation proponent might say their interpretation of the verse entails that God is like creatures in one way and not like them in another. Is that a response to our objections to said interpretation? Nope. Is that a reason to think detractors of said interpretation deny analogical language? Nope. It’s hard to imagine an emptier response.

 

Second – and increasing the concern that my opponent is skimming my words without due attention – when he says anthropomorphic predication is analogous predication, he runs right into the wall of ambiguity I have already spelled out for him. Does my opponent mean grammatic or rhetorical analogy, a device of language you can use for any object of thought? Or does my opponent mean metaphysical analogy, as in shared properties?

Now, either horn does not support a defense against the article’s objections. If he means language-analogy: that was addressed in the article. If he means metaphysical analogy: that was addressed in the article. My opponent is skilled in reviewing his claim, the doctrine of Eternal Generation, over and over. That’s nice and all, but we wait for any defense made against the article’s objections.

The following quote just amounts to the assignment of a label to his position:

he accused me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth for making proper negations.

Watch, I can use the same rhetorical tactic.

He accused me of negating analogous predication for making proper distinctions.
See how vapid that is?

Third, I invite people to remember that my opponent demanded a “link” for analogies. On a side note, he has nowhere provided reason to think one is necessary. That is still being assumed on blind faith, a leap I think very inappropriate when we discuss our Creator, whom we should approach assumptionless because He is God and we are creatures. But I digress…

My opponent demands an analogy link and supposes that he has provided one here:

there’s some things in the analogy that are like how God is and other thing that are not. so we can say, with Jesus, that the Spirit receives. . .the divine essence [from] the Father

I want to explicitly announce that this is my best reconstruction of what my opponent means. This is done intentionally to open the floor for correction. (Part of the issue is that words like “communicates,” when used of the Divine Essence, just reduce to gives/receives, or my opponent should stipulate what he means.)

Now we ask, what is the common link here of the sort my opponent demanded from me? Is it that the Spirit receives something? Is the analogy-link that just as we receive our being from the Father, so does the Spirit, just without any prior nonexistence or ignorance, or something like that?

 

Finally, my opponent pretends that name-calling the mysterian alternative “not doing or needing exegesis” amounts to a response. We are seeing my opponent set a trend: apparently using negatively connotated (mis-) descriptions of someone is an objection.

I suppose the New Atheists have disproved Christianity by the same token when, like my opponent uses insulting language of my alternatives, they insult God by calling Him a magic sky daddy.

Ironically, the reality is just that, as shown in the article and the fact my opponent has no responses except to resort to effective name-calling, my exegetical standards are higher than his, much too high for him to keep the pace.