Driscoll "has made an educated, informed decision to reject the historic, biblical definition of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity."

The older commentators certainly understood “only begotten” in verses like John 3:16 to refer to “eternal generation.” But even the newer translations choose “only” or “one and only” as their understanding of the term. Monogenes is not understood as it once was. So Driscoll (whom I am not defending because I think he is compromising) is not out of line on THIS point (at least many conservatives would align themselves with the view that the Son is the ONLY/UNIQUE Son rather than an eternally generated One).

The Eastern and Western church split was over several things in 1054, but one major difference was whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father or from the Father and the Son.

There is a BIG difference between saying the terms “procession” and “eternal generation” are not the way to define the relationship of the persons of the Trinity and denying that God is Three Divine Persons, of the same essence and yet distinct.

Denying eternal generation (and the term generation is understood as a relational term) is not the same as denying eternal distinctiveness or eternal sonship (as MacArthur played around with).

As Wayne Grudem comments (p. 244),

However, the nature of “begetting” has never been defined very clearly, other than to say it has to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son, and that in some sense the Father has eternally had a primacy in that relationship.