This is in the ball-park, but I don't think you've hit a home run with it (maybe about 2nd base?) - the quote doesn't explicitly reference the incarnation (and there is neither an implication of distinction between incarnation and an eternal begotten-ness), so I think your line is "The Son, in other words, is "begotten" not in virtue of the Incarnation etc." is over-reach if not non-sequitur. Maybe he just doesn't address the issue explicitly enough after all to definitively answer my question.

When he talks about the distinction between the Father and the Son, and talks about "generation" (the Latin equivalent for being "begotten"; the same word), he doesn't talk about incarnation at all. That is, he addresses the issue of being "begotten", but he doesn't mention the Incarnation at all in his discussion (not here, or in any part of his discussion of the Trinity). He phrases his discussion as if the Son would have been "begotten" of the Father even if the Incarnation had not taken place at all.

In other words (and my point is), Thomas appears to be saying that the "begotten-ness" of the Son has nothing whatsoever to do with the Incarnation.

@MattGutting When I have time, I will examine your references more thoroughly to see if there is something else in them that warrants your conclusion, but from what I see in front of me in this post, you are reading into that particular text something that just isn't there.

Although it would be tackling the argument at one remove, of particular relevance would be Thomas's view on the nature of time and how it relates to God's eternity.

Thomas tackles eternity in general: "Whether eternity differs from time?" His answer: "Eternity is simultaneously whole [i.e. it cannot be divided into 'now', 'before', and 'after']. But time has a 'before' and an 'after.' Therefore time and eternity are not the same thing."

Yes, I think this will take some discussion

Was the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world? If so, then I believe it necessarily implies the incarnation is an eternal verity not a temporal one - what do you think of that?

cf. Revelation 13:8

Hm. The New American Bible translation of Rev 13: 8 says: "All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain." Thus, it takes "from the foundation of the world" to modify the word "written", not the word "slain".

@MattGutting I appreciate your (implied) willingness to do so :)

Which means the question you bring up doesn't arise.

usccb.org/bible/revelation/13:8

this is perhaps a verse where doctrine determines hermeneutic: biblehub.com/revelation/13-8.htm

Possible. One cross-reference that the NAB gives is to Rev 17:8

perhaps a visit to BH is in order...

in this translation "The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world ... "

That is an interesting divide though

Sure is - calls for further research, but from my perspective, it will have to wait - I'm beat and got an early start. I hope we can pick up this conversation sometime tomorrow (or later, I'm in no hurry)

I'm on mobile usually durng my evenings while my wife is on the computer :-) but mornings are good for me. Look for me in 18 hours or so, whenever that is for you :-)

Yeah, I think that will work - God bless

+

Actually nevermind, I forgot this is going to be a really busy weekend for me, I'm not available until Monday morning eastern US time.