-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
One false claim after another.
Question for all you Sunday School graduates, Did God the Son always exist, or did He come from the Father. Is He light from light or was He always light. Is He the true God from the true God, or was He always the true God. Was He produced or did He always exist.
Now put on your thinking caps.....
@jesusis correct on that point. The reason for Eternal Generation was to affirm that Jesus is "I Am", that He is eternally God without change in His divine nature.
An easier way to understand the point is to read John 1. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with and was God. Eternal means without beginning or end. The problem some who study theological concepts as if they were contemporary writings have is with the word "begotten", or "logos".
Logos refers to an idea of "coming forth", or "begotten". Alone this would mean a beginning, but the concept of eternity negates that error.
The heresy the Creed was addressing with the idea of Christ as the eternally begotten Son was the idea that the Word was less than God or had a beginning.
One cannot be a Christian and reject the concept that Jesus is the Eternally Begotten of God. The best they can do is be a Jehovahs Witness. That said, there are Christians who do object, but when asked in simpler (and modern) terms they actually believe the concept as put forward in the Creed. They just do not understand the language used (they never moved past being a Sunday School graduate).
I have met people who hold tge opposite problem. They understand Scripture but fail to see and understand ideas expressed in antiquity - like eternally begotten (the Word is eternally God) - because they become stuck on antiquated words. While a rejection of the doctrine is a rejection of the gospel, they are really rejecting words they fail to grasp. They misunderstand "coessential" (Godhead), "begotten" (logos), and "before all ages" (without beginning) and get stuck on those words.
37818
Well-Known Member
You are wrong. The Creed claims "begotten and not made.". Where the truth is "not begotten and not made." The eternal Son simply has no cause. He is the uncaused even as His Father Is.
You mistake "begotten" to mean having a beginning or being born. The word "Logos" implies begotten, not as being created, born or made but "going forth". This is the role of the Word, and by definition of "son". My words are begotten by my thoughts, the sun begats light, and the Son was the Son (i.e., begotten God) before the Incarnation (God sent His Son into the world).
More important to the Creed, however, is an affirmation of Jesus' divinity. This was the key purpose 9f "begotten not made". The Father did not make Jesus. Jesus is eternally YHWH.
I do not believe you even come close to denying that Jesus is Eternally Begotten of the Father (that He is begotten and not made before all ages). Likewise, I do not believe you reject that the Father is eternally the Father (which also implies the Son as "begotten", otherwise the Father became the Fatther). We do not disagree on the theology of the actual Creed here (I believe you are a Christian).
But you do not understand the Creed. You are taking the words in your own context where as the Creed was designed to guard against heresies (on this point, to guard against the idea the Word had a beginning and is less than God). You need to study up on the topic (others my take your words at face value and conclude you reject Christ's divinity).
37818
Well-Known Member
The very word "begotten" means some kind of beginning! You are being deliberately blind. Remember the Devil is the liar. Brother, please stop listening to his [curse word removed] lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
37818
Well-Known Member
begotten | Etymology of begotten by etymonline
"procreated," late 14c., past-participle adjective from beget. See origin and meaning of begotten.
www.etymonline.com
No. Jesus being eternally YHWH is not a lie from Satan. It is truth, and it is truth that early theologians used to combat the heresy Jesus was less than God, a created being.
You can argue that the Father was not always the Father because this implies the beginning of something (berring a child) and the Son was not always the Son because that implies a beginning (a birth). But this merely shows you do not comprehend the usage of the idea of "begotten"
"Begotten" vs "made" in the Creed is not referencing a time but rather a nature. The point is that Jesus is YHWH - eternally God. By definition this is before all ages, eternally, without beginning or end.
You believe what you call a lie from Satan (Eternally Begotten). You simply are confused about the words used because you create your own context.
The theologians who worked out the Creed affirmed that Jesus is eternally God, without beginning or end. The whole focus of "begotten not made" references that Jesus is eternally YHWH (Jesus' identity, not a beginning). The heresy the Creed addressed by using "begotten" was the mistake of viewing Jesus as less than YHWH.
I wish you were able to study the actual meaning of the Creed, and how early theologians used these explanations to combat early heresies because it is a fascinating topic and a history that belongs to the faithful. Obviously you can't remove the Creed from contemporary ideas and look at what it addressed. And that is fine.
It is not important that you understand historical theology. The important thing here is that you affirm Jesus as "begotten not made" (that Jesus is eternally God), mot that you grasp the meaning, context, or words used in ancient creeds to express that truth.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yet the bible many times uses the word "begotten" referring to the Saviour. For example:
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him].” (Joh 1:18 NKJV)
“"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)
“"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18 NKJV)
“In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” (1Jo 4:9 NKJV)
I agree. The Creed simply expressed John 1:1 as a statement to combat the heresy that Jedus was made and not eternally YHWH.
37818
Well-Known Member
The Creed does not acknowledge the Son is YHWH.
Because YHWH is not begotten.
37818
Well-Known Member
No. Not the same word. Read the Greek.
YHWH was never begotten. The Son is the same YHWH as the Father. Not begotten.
The Greek translated "only begotten" is better translated "unique."
Last edited:
Begotten in the sense of being very same essence as the Father, literally, whatever the "stuff" that makes one Yahweh, both of them have it
Unique due to Him being the only eternal Person along with the Father, begotten eternal as always existing with the Father, and both equally fully God
Big problem is that many see into the Creed term begotten as meaning modern view that it expresses concept of Jesus being created by the Father, yet at time of the Creed, Greek terminology used connoted Jesus eternally with the father and NOT a created being, as means to confront arianism views of Jesus