Nicene Creed as a Christian standard of the faith.

There is nothing, IMHO, that is objectionable.

It is a very simple statement of faith formulated to address heresies that were creeping into churches.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed was to specifically address Arian controversy. Arianism holds that the Son is dependent on the Father and is therefore a creature or creation of God.

This is why Eternal Generation is so central to the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed.

The Son is Eternal, not created but eternally coming from the Father (as the Word in the OT, the Son in the NT, but Eternally Yahweh...co-equal with the Father).

This means that while the Son comes from the Father there was no beginning (in terms of God) to the Son.

The fact that the Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century to guard against Arianism does not make it less important to Christianity than any other statement of Biblical doctrine that guards against heresy.

 

That is not true.

John 5:26–32 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

John 8:53–58 “Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

John 17:22–26 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”


@37818

You constantly claim that the Son had a beginning. His own words prove you are speaking heresy.

The Jewish leaders recognized He was claiming to be equal to the Father, even declaring that He is YHWH. The evidence is they sought to stone Him.

He IS The Son....ETERNAL....NO BEGINNING.

You are very wrong on this one.

 

Nobody is arguing that the Word became flesh, that Jesus was born.

The question here is whether the Son being the 2nd Person of the Trinity existed before He was born in Bethlehem.

You say He didn't. He said "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Either you are wrong or Jesus is wrong.


The ONLY question I think most have on this board is whether you are a heretic or simply misunderstand "eternally begotten". I think the latter.

That is something @Van pointed out on a previous thread. Terms convey a different meaning today, and for our culture matching "eternal" with "begotten" does not make sence. Obe has to go back and see what the words mean as today it represents a theological term.

Personally I like kerping the historical words, but I also recognize it is confusing outside of theology. So I am all for an updated version expressing the exact same doctrine.


Either way, you are only able to be on this board posting because Dr. Bob is not here and TCassidy has passed. The Doctrine of the Trinity was a line in the sand to them, and your rejection a serious heresy.

I invited you before....and you always shy away....to prove by Scripture that the Son is not eternally Yahweh.

 

@37818 the issue is very simple.

You just have to use what the theological term actually means instead of assigning to the term a more contemporary meaning based on the two words (which really can't go together).

Eternally (existing without beginning or ending)
Begotten (equal, of the same essence)

Eternal (existing without beginning or ending)
Generation (equal, of the same essence)


The whole point is that the Son is eternally co-equal to the Father, is eternally YHWH.

The term was coined against Arianism (that the Son is a created being, less than God).


You have been arguing against a misdefinitiom of "eternally begotten" and "eternal generation" for over a week now.

 

Yes. A theological term.

There are many extra-biblical terms and words people should know before engaging in discussions - Trinity, Atonement, hypostatic union, ketosis, Bible, Christophanies, Pneumatology.....


What you disagree with is the use of "begotten" or "generated" to mean "co-equal" or "of the same essence".

The reason those words were chosen is begat implies the exact same kind but different Person (the son of a man is a man).

Applied to God and theologically it means "co-equal" and "the same essence"....it means Jesus is eternally Yahweh, without beginning.

The problem is you posted that you reject Eternal Generation and eternally begotten (that the Second Person of the Trinity is Eternal and co-equal with God).

If that were true then you would believe the 2nd Person of the Trinity is less than God (the thing those words were written to reject).


Now.....reading your posts I get that you actually believe Eternal Generation, Eternally Begotten. I would caution you, in the future, to understand a doctrine before announcing you reject it.

You simply don't like the terms used because outside of a historical and theological context it could be taken as unbiblical.

But we don't get to travel back in time to introduce new words and terms.

 

Thread closed.

The discussion is approaching a line.

Please feel free to discuss how doctrines could be reworded to better communicate its meaning today.

But maintaining a long established standard on this board, debating the validity of the Doctrine of the Trinity is not allowed.