Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 81:1 (Spring 2019)
Article: Samuel Miller’s (1769–1850) Theological, Historical, Biblical, And Pastoral Defense Of The Eternal Generation Of The Son
Author: Allen Stanton

---

WTJ 81:1 (Spring 2019) p. 141

Samuel Miller’s (1769–1850) Theological, Historical, Biblical, And Pastoral Defense Of The Eternal Generation Of The Son

Allen Stanton

Allen Stanton is a PhD candidate at Puritan Reformed Seminary and pastor of Pinehaven Presbyterian (PCA) in Clinton, MS.

In recent years, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God has been called into question by evangelical scholars. The doctrine has often been charged with being unbiblical, speculative, irrational, or inconsequential, charges which have sparked much debate. The objections to the Chalcedonian doctrine, however, are not new. In fact, a considerable controversy emerged in Reformed circles between two celebrated Calvinist seminarians: Moses Stuart (1780–1852) of Andover Theological Seminary and Samuel Miller (1769–1850) of Princeton Theological Seminary. Stuart denied the validity of the doctrine on philosophical, historical, and biblical grounds in a publication entitled Letters on the Eternal Generation of the Son Addressed to the Rev. Samuel Miller (1822), while Miller, on the other hand, defended the doctrine on historical and philosophical grounds but most substantially on biblical grounds in his response entitled Letters on the Eternal Sonship of Christ Addressed to the Rev. Professor Stuart of Andover (1823). This article examines and evaluates these publications in their historical context in hopes that doing so may contribute to the modern debate.

Modern scholars recognize four branches in theological studies: biblical, historical, systematic (including philosophical), and practical. Most modern practitioners specialize in one of these four branches and limit their treatments to their field. However, this approach is stretched to the limit when considering the question of the eternal generation of the Son. It appears nearly impossible to consider the biblical testimony aside from systematic and philosophical, historical, or practical factors.1 The branches intertwine in such a way that appropriate consideration of the issue requires a practitioner with advanced training in all of these fields.

However, the over-specialization of fields in the present academic system does not lend itself well to the production of such an individual. Presently,

WTJ 81:1 (Spring 2019) p. 142

there appears to be few sufficiently equipped to perform such a task. If such an enterprise cannot be found among the writings of present scholars, one must turn to the pages of the past. Limiting ourselves to the English-speaking world, a brief survey of recent history recalls a debate over this issue between two of the celebrated scholars of the nineteenth century: Moses Stuart of ...

visitor : : uid: ()