The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[JonC]

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

I agree. This is the problem @37818 is having. The Greek word used in the Creed (the Creed was written in Greek) is Μονογενῆ. This is the same word Scripture uses to identify Jesus prior ti the Incarnation. It is the word used in the concept of "Eternal Generation".

Those who rejected the doctrine that Jesus is Μονογενῆ, not made, are rejecting Scripture. The word "begotten" in the English may be an unfortunate as most think of a beginning or birth. But so is "word" for "λόγος" ("word" has a beginning).

When we look at doctrine we have to look at what is taught, not necessarily the English translation of each word.

The Nicene Creed teaches that Jesus is uniquely God, not made.


The problem with calling the Creed satanic (as @37818 has) for declaring that Jesus is Μονογενῆ is that it is calling Scripture and every English Bible that uses an archaic meaning for "begotten" satanic. It is 8gnorant, but it us also blasphemous.

God chose to use Μονογενῆ in His Word. The writers of the Nicean Creed chose to use Μονογενῆ in their defence against heresy. Who are we to call the work of the Spirit in giving God's Word (Scripture) "satanic"?

 

[JonC]

The Creed does not acknowledge the Son is YHWH.
Because YHWH is not begotten.

God delivered His Word to man through human writers by His Spirit.

You insist applying Μονογενῆ to Christ pre-incarbate is satanic and a lie, but this is Scripture. The writers of the Nicene Creed copied that Jesus is Μονογενῆ directly from Scripture and emphasized "not a created being".

You have attributed the work of the Spirit for using the Greek word Μονογενῆ as the work of Satan and a lie. That is by definition blasphemy.

The Nicene Creed was not written in English. Μονογενῆ, which we translate "begotten" also means "unique". Μονογενῆ is used to convey that Jesus is God (divine), and not less than God.

We do not always have a perfect English word to convey the meaning of Greek words. We see this with using "word" (which has a start or beginning) for λόγος.

I agree that "begotten" is not a perfect English word to communicate what the Nicene Creed teaches. But neither is "unique". English translators chose the word because what was being communicated was that Christ is God, no less than the Father in His nature. The same is communicated with the word λόγος and the English choice of "word" (e.g., the word communicating a thought).


To call God a liar and satanic is serious. This is what you did, although perhaps unintentionally if you did not reali,e the Creed was not written in English.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. This is the problem @37818 is having. The Greek word used in the Creed (the Creed was written in Greek) is Μονογενῆ. This is the same word Scripture uses to identify Jesus prior ti the Incarnation. It is the word used in the concept of "Eternal Generation".

Those who rejected the doctrine that Jesus is Μονογενῆ, not made, are rejecting Scripture. The word "begotten" in the English may be an unfortunate as most think of a beginning or birth. But so is "word" for "λόγος" ("word" has a beginning).

When we look at doctrine we have to look at what is taught, not necessarily the English translation of each word.

The Nicene Creed teaches that Jesus is uniquely God, not made.


The problem with calling the Creed satanic (as @37818 has) for declaring that Jesus is Μονογενῆ is that it is calling Scripture and every English Bible that uses an archaic meaning for "begotten" satanic. It is 8gnorant, but it us also blasphemous.

God chose to use Μονογενῆ in His Word. The writers of the Nicean Creed chose to use Μονογενῆ in their defence against heresy. Who are we to call the work of the Spirit in giving God's Word (Scripture) "satanic"?

Even if one wants to use term as unique and only as the translation, still would affirming Jesus eternally preexisting as Go, so heir concerns are really making a Mountain out of a mole hill

 

[JonC]

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."

"Unique" is not a better translation. The writers of the Creed used Μονογενῆ to communicate that Jesus is YHWH, not less than God but the very same.

"Unique" means "the only one of its kind". But this is NOT what the Bible or Creed is communicating. Both use Μονογενῆ to link Jesus eternally with the Father, to emphasize NOT unique (which is a heresy....less than God but more than man) but the SAME God.

Why do you believe Scripture and the Creed a satanic lie for using the word Μονογενῆ?

 

[JonC]

Even if one wants to use term as unique and only as the translation, still would affirming Jesus eternally preexisting as Go, so heir concerns are really making a Mountain out of a mole hill

"Unique" is a worse choice of English words, though, because Μονογενῆ was used in Scripture send the Creed to mean more than "unique". Jesus is not only eternal but He is YHWH. The whole point is that Jesus is not "one of a kind" but the same in kind as the Father.

The problem I have is when people, like @37818 did, call the Nicean Creed satanic and a lie for saying Jesus is Μονογενῆ. The reason I take issue is that this is the word Scripture uses (both the Creed and passages in question were written in Greek). It is blasphemous.

I get that the use of the English word "begotten" for Μονογενῆ could cause confusion if obe was mor aware of the issue being defended by the Creed. But that is a translation. And "unique", "one and only", "only of its kind or type" fails to communicate the point Jesus is YHWH.


In the context of the passages and Creed, the word "unique" does not communicate "eternal". It communicates "one of its kind". BUT "begotten", even with the problem of creating misunderstanding, communicates that Jesus is God, same in kind as the Father, and by definition is eternal.

 

[Van]

@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 totally disagree. Just because Arminianism is closer to the truth than Calvinism, does not mean we should embrace Arminianism. Here they said since Logos was of the same essence, he was begotten not made or created ex nilo. Logos did not come from the Father, He always existed with the Father as a separate Person of the Trinity.

 

[Van]

To compound matters, I'll go with the Athanasius Creed (except maybe the first and last sentence).

Sorry Sir, but I have no idea as to whether you are affirming or rejecting the Nicene Creed.

 

[JonC]

I totally disagree. Just because Arminianism is closer to the truth than Calvinism, does not mean we should embrace Arminianism. Here they said since Logos was of the same essence, he was begotten not made or created ex nilo. Logos did not come from the Father, He always existed with the Father as a separate Person of the Trinity.

I disagree. Logos, if applicable, implies a "coming forth". It doesn't deny always existing with the Father.

 

[Van]

Jesus eternally prexisted as the very Logos of the Father, who when incarnated, was the Son of God, as having then for the very first time assumed human flesh and limitations.

Good Grief - now he has invented "Logos of the Father." God's revealed word is God's word, but the phrase does not say God's word is from the Father and not from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the beginning, Logos was with God and Logos was God.

 

[Van]

I disagree. Logos, if applicable, implies a "coming forth". It doesn't deny always existing with the Father.

To repeat, God set forth or revealed His uniquely divine Son, He did not make, produce, or somehow beget God the Son.

And the word at issue is "begotten" reflecting the mistranslation of the Hebrew (Psalm 2:7) and Greek (John 1:14). "...as uniquely divine with the Father..."

 

[JonC]

To repeat, God set forth or revealed His uniquely divine Son, He did not make, produce, or somehow beget God the Son.

Yes, but context matters. The Nicean Creed DOES NOT use the English word "begotten". It repeats what Scripture says and uses Μονογενῆ. The Creed specifically states that Jesus was not made, produced or somehow begat by God but instead uses οὐ ποιηθέντα ("not produced").

You seem to agree with the Nisan Creed but disagree with some of the English words translators chose. That does not mean the Creed is incorrect. It only means that people should study, if they want to discuss the Creed, knowing that the English is a translation of the Greek.

The problem with translating Μονογενῆ as "uniquely divine" is that it implies a divinity diffferent from the Father (a unique divinity) where the purpose of Μονογενῆ was to emphasize that Jesus is God and not less than the Father in His divinity. Another problem is the word Μονογενῆ itself has nothing to do with divinity (you are right that divinity is in view given the context, but you are paraphrasing). I don't know of a single English word that communicates the aspect of "begotten" (like in kind, same essence and nature) that the English translators were by their word choice. But it isn't a perfect word (as some could ignore the second part, lift the word from the context and view "begotten" to mean "produced").

But you are wrong that the problem is with the word choices of the Nicene Creed. The Creed uses the same word as is in Scripture. It is the English words that are causing you to stumble, not the Creed itself.

 

[37818]

The problem I have is when people, like @37818 did, call the Nicean Creed satanic and a lie for saying Jesus is Μονογενῆ. The reason I take issue is that this is the word Scripture uses (both the Creed and passages in question were written in Greek). It is blasphemous.

The Creed using Μονογενῆ is not at issue. Never was.

The Creed has unBiblical teachings.
That you are not aware of them.
For an example. The Son is the true Light, the Creed does not affirm!

 

[Blank]

Sorry Sir, but I have no idea as to whether you are affirming or rejecting the Nicene Creed.

Ok, I don't hold to these parts...(Regarding Athanasius Creed)

"Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.


This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

But where it touches on the Trinity I'm in full agreement.

I hold firmly to the Nicene as far as it goes.

 

[JonC]

The Creed using Μονογενῆ is not at issue. Never was.

The Creed has unBiblical teachings.
That you are not aware of them.
For an example. The Son is the true Light, the Creed does not affirm!

Jesus said that He is the Light of the world. Do you believe this because Jesus didn't say "True Light" in that verse?

The Creed also does not say that Jesus is the Vine, or the Shepherd.

The Creed was making the point (in this section) that Jesus is God, not less than the Father.

Your complaint, the reason you called the Creed a satanic lie was that it used the word Μονογενῆ which English translators translated as "begotten" to emphasize "same in kind".

Two points:

1. After saying the Creed was a satanic lie because it says Jesus is Μονογενῆ you are shifting to arguing one cannot say Jesus is Light without saying "true Light".

2. The issue the Creed was not addressing was not the validity of Jesus as the Light. It was addressing the heresy that Jesus was less than the Father and not eternally God.

 

[37818]

The 325 AD Greek text:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,


κατελθόντα,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
παθόντα,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,
ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι
ἢ κτιστόν
ἢ τρεπτόν
ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

 

[JonC]

The 325 AD Greek text:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός ,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,


κατελθόντα,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
παθόντα,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν,
καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,
ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι
ἢ κτιστόν
ἢ τρεπτόν
ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

I have the text. Your complaint is the use of Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, referring to Jesus as being equal to the Father in His divine nature.

 

[JonC]

Ok, I don't hold to these parts...(Regarding Athanasius Creed)

"Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.


This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

But where it touches on the Trinity I'm in full agreement.

I hold firmly to the Nicene as far as it goes.

"Catholic" here means universal (essential Christian faith). The Creed was pre-Catholic Church. But even as late as the early 20th century Baptist scholars wrote of holding a "catholic faith" (universal and essential Christian faith).

 

[37818]

I have the text. Your complaint is the use of Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, referring to Jesus as being equal to the Father in His divine nature.

John 1:9, . . . το φως το αληθινον . . . .

Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, is a lower view of the Son.

 

[Van]

Yes, but context matters. The Nicean Creed DOES NOT use the English word "begotten". It repeats what Scripture says and uses Μονογενῆ. The Creed specifically states that Jesus was not made, produced or somehow begat by God but instead uses οὐ ποιηθέντα ("not produced").

You seem to agree with the Nisan Creed but disagree with some of the English words translators chose. That does not mean the Creed is incorrect. It only means that people should study, if they want to discuss the Creed, knowing that the English is a translation of the Greek.

The problem with translating Μονογενῆ as "uniquely divine" is that it implies a divinity diffferent from the Father (a unique divinity) where the purpose of Μονογενῆ was to emphasize that Jesus is God and not less than the Father in His divinity. Another problem is the word Μονογενῆ itself has nothing to do with divinity (you are right that divinity is in view given the context, but you are paraphrasing). I don't know of a single English word that communicates the aspect of "begotten" (like in kind, same essence and nature) that the English translators were by their word choice. But it isn't a perfect word (as some could ignore the second part, lift the word from the context and view "begotten" to mean "produced").

But you are wrong that the problem is with the word choices of the Nicene Creed. The Creed uses the same word as is in Scripture. It is the English words that are causing you to stumble, not the Creed itself.

Yes, my rejection of the Nicene Creed is based on the English translation. This thread is written in English and to pretend the posters are discussing the Greek creed is ludicrous.

There is no problem with using "uniquely divine" as a description of Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate, thus uniquely divine.

I am not paraphrasing, I am offering an interpretive translation to present what I believe is the actual meaning of the text.

The English translators of the Greek Nicene creed had plenty of choices. Unique and one of a kind spring to mind.

 

[Van]

Ok, I don't hold to these parts...(Regarding Athanasius Creed)

"Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.


This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

But where it touches on the Trinity I'm in full agreement.

I hold firmly to the Nicene as far as it goes.

Then we disagree concerning the Nicene creed.

But we agree, at least superficially, that people should not dictate that the content of our beliefs mush be such and so, since it is God alone who decides whose faith to credit as righteousness. The idea is not that our faith was righteous, but that God chose, by His grace, to credit our worthless flawed faith as sufficient for His purpose. Take the example of the trained Pastor who knows all the right words, but his faith is not deeply rooted.