The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[JonC]

There are three or four views for the Biblical Trinity. And their differences are regarding the Sonship of the Word.

The problem highlighted in this discussion is not unique to the topic. Often it depends on how people understand what is being taught. Many timrs those who disagree with "begotten", "light from light" etc. disagree because they define the words differently than those who affirm the teaching.

"Lordship Salvation" is a good second example. Those who disagree with the doctrine define "lordship" differently (often as a works-based mode), but those who hold the doctrine define "lordship" as Christ being Lord even when the believer is disobedient.

We also see this with "free-will" debates. Calvinists typically define "free-will" as libertarian free-will while those who hold a free-will theology define free-will as volition.

 

[37818]

The problem highlighted in this discussion is not unique to the topic. Often it depends on how people understand what is being taught. Many timrs those who disagree with "begotten", "light from light" etc. disagree because they define the words differently than those who affirm the teaching.

"Lordship Salvation" is a good second example. Those who disagree with the doctrine define "lordship" differently (often as a works-based mode), but those who hold the doctrine define "lordship" as Christ being Lord even when the believer is disobedient.

We also see this with "free-will" debates. Calvinists typically define "free-will" as libertarian free-will while those who hold a free-will theology define free-will as volition.

Different understands of usage of terminologies is always problematic. A list can, no doubt, be made. Of terms and ideologies.

 

[Blank]

Yet another change the subject from the falsehood of Nicene Creed.

Section of Nicene Creed with truth inserted and original falsehood removed.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ
God the Son,
uniquely divine with the Father before all ages,
God with God,
Light with Light
true God with true God,
uniquely divine, not made,
of the same essence as the Father.

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

Again, where do you disagree with the Creed?

 

[Blank]

Did God, Yahweh, have a beginning? Or are the three Persons of the Trinity eternal? Now all you Sunday School graduates, please acknowledge the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal, with no beginning. Thus God the Son did NOT come from God the Father. God the Son is not Light from Light, i.e. not out of the Father's pre-existing light.

Anyone affirming the Nicene Creed simply accepts tradition that makes God's word to no effect.

This is what happens when human reason and logic trumps God's revelation from His Word.
A divergence? Yup, but a needful divergence.

 

[JonC]

Different understands of usage of terminologies is always problematic. A list can, no doubt, be made. Of terms and ideologies.

That'd be good, but some would still object.

For example, around 397 AD Ambrose (in The Christian Faith) defined "begotten" in terms of the Son as meaning two things - the Son is God (His nature) and the Son is eternal.

But reading this thread it appears that many reject the definition those theologians used for the words they used.

 

[JesusFan]

That'd be good, but some would still object.

For example, around 397 AD Ambrose (in The Christian Faith) defined "begotten" in terms of the Son as meaning two things - the Son is God (His nature) and the Son is eternal.

But reading this thread it appears that many reject the definition those theologians used for the words they used.

A big reason for their confusion would be trying to read back into terminology used based upon present use of terms, and not going by the context and reasoning of that time, and also choosing to use vocabulary of a specific translation

 

[Blank]

A big reason for their confusion would be trying to read back into terminology used based upon present use of terms, and not going by the context and reasoning of that time, and also choosing to use vocabulary of a specific translation

I've always wondered (not to change the subject), since we aren't even sure of the original manuscripts etc., how can we be sure of the context and reasoning of that time?

 

[JonC]

I've always wondered (not to change the subject), since we aren't even sure of the original manuscripts etc., how can we be sure of the context and reasoning of that time?

Because we have the arguments against the heresies it argues against (which defines the context).

 

[Van]

@Van,
It seems you confuse γεννηθέντα with Μονογενῆ used in your translation of the Creed.

I do not see anything to address, you imply error but do not put it explicitly into English.

 

[Van]

This is what happens when human reason and logic trumps God's revelation from His Word.
A divergence? Yup, but a needful divergence.

More implication and innuendo, but nothing addressing the fact that the Nicene Creed contains false doctrine.

 

[Van]

Provincials defend the traditions of the past that erroneously made God's word to no effect. God the Son did not come out of (ek) God the Father, they along with the Holy Spirit are eternal with no beginning.

 

[Blank]

Because we have the arguments against the heresies it argues against (which defines the context).

So tradition trumps Scripture? (Since lacking the originals, we have little basis for determining heresies).

 

[37818]

I do not see anything to address, you imply error but do not put it explicitly into English.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,


At issue > begotten from the Father before all ages,

 

[37818]

I don't know either. I can only reply to what you write, not to what you are thinking.

And I have replied to all that. See my post #9.

Psalm 2:7 per Acts 13:33 and Romans 1:4, are about Christ in His bodily resurrection.

 

[Blank]

More implication and innuendo, but nothing addressing the fact that the Nicene Creed contains false doctrine.

I never said it contained false doctrine, I said it only lacks a statement concerning the Divine inspiration of scripture, the very foundation which the Creed is built on.

 

[Van]

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,


At issue > begotten from the Father before all ages,

I addressed that begotten is a mistranslation of the Greek word (transliterated) "monegenes." Your charge I confuse this word with G1080 is nonsense.

 

[Van]

I never said it contained false doctrine, I said it only lacks a statement concerning the Divine inspiration of scripture, the very foundation which the Creed is built on.

Go back and read your statement. Implication and innuendo. The problem with the Nicene Creed in not in what it does not say, but in the falsehood (God the Son came from God the Father) it does say.

 

[JonC]

Thread closed due to length.