Nicene Creed

[Van]

Note that you used the term "Father" in your rewrite.

The "generation" part stands. The Word eternally "comes forth" from the Father.
I do believe that the Word eternally "comes forth" from the Father, and since I believe this to be an eternal relationship I believe that this did not change when the Word became flesh.
I have offered several OT examples of this. Granted, these could be isolated instances spread out over Scripture.
BUT you have not offered a defense for a change within the Trinity with the Incarnation.
In fact, your use of "Father" seems to recognize that the Word eternally comes forth from the Father.
BTW, why did you choose to call the 1st Person of the Trinity "Father"?

Here is what I wrote:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, our uniquely divine God incarnate, designated by the Father before all ages.​

Comes forth refers to biological creation of an entity that did not exist before coming forth.
To be designated by the Father fits your claimed meaning of "comes forth."
I did not say nor suggest God the Son became God the Son at the incarnation.
I do not recall what your "several examples" refers to, nor the verses cited.
Of course I offered no defense for a change of the Second Person becoming the Son at the incarnation, that is not my view, since I have said all three Persons existed eternally, without a beginning.
Yes, God the Father was always God the Father, and God the Son was always God the Son.
The First Person of the Trinity simply differentiates God the Father from the other two Persons of the Trinity, the term does not signify that God the Father existed before the other two or that the other two were "brought forth" from the Father.
Jesus refereed to God the Father as Father, and certainly God the Father created all humans, thus our "Heavenly Father."

 

[37818]

Galatians 4, John 3.....God sent His Son. His Son came forth from the Father.

Referring to the incarnation. The Creator became part of His creation. What creed explains the Creator became part of His creation?

 

[37818]

My point is you reject the idea that the Divine relationship between the Father, Word, and Spirit is an eternal relationship (Eternal Generation).

I affirm the eternal relationship without any kind of generation.

 

[37818]

All of them.

Please quote each of the explanations where the it is so explained that was the meaning of the incarnation, the Creator became a created being.

 

[37818]

Since you insist the divine relationship between the Father and Son BEGAN at the Incarnation . . .

False.

My view has always been:
The divine relationship of the Persons of the Trinity has no beginning.

 

[JonC]

Referring to the incarnation. The Creator became part of His creation. What creed explains the Creator became part of His creation?

All of them. They specifically state He made all things.

 

[MrW]

I believe He was begotten when He became flesh, John 1:14.

 

[JonC]

False.

My view has always been:
The divine relationship of the Persons of the Trinity has no beginning.

This is not true (otherwise you would hold Eternal Generation).

Unless you are suggesting the divine relationship of the Persons of the Trinity have an ending.

That is the WHOLE point of Eternal Generation. The relationship is eternal. The DIVINE relationship did not change with the Incarnation. The DIVINE relationship Christ had starting at the Incarnation is the same as He had in eternity past.

What changed was not the Word ceasing to be the Word (a loss of divinity) but the Word becoming man.

 

[JonC]

@37818

To rephrase....

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. This did not change with the Incarnation.

The Spirit eternally goes forth from God, the Word eternally comes forth from God. These are distinct Persons but eternally God. One God, three Persons. The Eternal, Immutable Trinity.

We can talk about the Incarnation, about Jesus as the Son of Man and being begotten from the Father as man.....BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC.

Eternal Generation is specifically and only about the Eternal divine relationship between the 1st and 2nd Persons of the Trinity.

 

[JonC]

This thread is closed.

There are a couple of issues approaching the line (the one that we shouldn't approach on a Christian board).

One of these issues is the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Please feel free to discuss, as @Van has, how the doctrine 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.

The other issue will be addressed if needed.