The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[JonC]

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.

There is a problem with "uniquely divine" because the Creed is dealing with the relationship between the Father and Son. How is Jesus' divinity different from the Father's divinity? Dealing with the issue the Creed addressed, how is Jesus less God than is the Father?

It is paraphrasing, and a mistake, because the Creed is emphasizing that Jesus is God, not more or less God than the Father, and is the "exact representation of the Father".

By declaring Jesus divine but having a different (unique) divinity than the Father you are misinterpreting the word by your paraphrase.

"Unique and one of a kind" was not a choice because the point of the actual Creed is that Jesus is the SAME in kind as the Father.

 

[JonC]

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

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

No. This mistake was already addressed in the Creed. What we are dealing with is the truth expressed in Hebrews 1:1 and Colossians 1:15. Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God. This does not mean Jesus is inferior (hence "begotten").

 

[Van]

There is a problem with "uniquely divine" because the Creed is dealing with the relationship between the Father and Son. How is Jesus' divinity different from the Father's divinity? Dealing with the issue the Creed addressed, how is Jesus less God than is the Father?

It is paraphrasing, and a mistake, because the Creed is emphasizing that Jesus is God, not more or less God than the Father, and is the "exact representation of the Father".

By declaring Jesus divine but having a different (unique) divinity than the Father you are misinterpreting the word by your paraphrase.

"Unique and one of a kind" was not a choice because the point of the actual Creed is that Jesus is the SAME in kind as the Father.

Sorry Sir by you are redefining the meaning of the Greek word. It does not mean "the same as" but unique. You are reading into the text.

Here is an English translation:

​

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.​

You are denying this context, the Son came from the Father. It is false doctrine.

Here is a corrected blurb:

​

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.​

 

[JonC]

Sorry Sir by you are redefining the meaning of the Greek word. It does not mean "the same as" but unique. You are reading into the text.

Here is an English translation:

​

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.​

You are denying this context, the Son came from the Father. It is false doctrine.

I understand you reject the passages that state Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God, that one can't see Him without seeing the Father. And I understand that you believe Jesus is divine, but in a unique way than the other Persons of the Trinity. I reject your belief.

The Greek word μόνογενής. means only of a kind but in a specific relationship, class or type. This is why "begotten" was chosen. The relationship in question (in the Creed) is between the Father and Son. The meaning is that the Son is God, the Father is God. The Son is not less than God, but is the exact representation of the invisible God.

You should have learned this in seminary when you studied historical creeds. There is no excuse for your ignorance on this issue.

 

[Van]

I understand you reject the passages that state Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God, that one can't see Him without seeing the Father. And I understand that you believe Jesus is divine, but in a unique way than the other Persons of the Trinity. I reject your belief.

The Greek word μόνογενής. means only of a kind but in a specific relationship, class or type. This is why "begotten" was chosen. The relationship in question (in the Creed) is between the Father and Son. The meaning is that the Son is God, the Father is God. The Son is not less than God, but is the exact representation of the invisible God.

You should have learned this in seminary when you studied historical creeds. There is no excuse for your ignorance on this issue.

We are done, your claims about what I reject are poppycock.

 

[JonC]

We are done, your claims about what I reject are poppycock.

That is why you should have studied harder in seminary. You should know better, know exactly what the Creed was articulated to address, know why they chose a specific way of addressing the heresies, and grasp the basic concepts of historical theology. But you don't.

Instead you create different levels and types of divinity to claim that Jesus is divine but only uniquely so, not divine like the Father. You are wrong.

 

[Mikey]

There is a problem with "uniquely divine" because the Creed is dealing with the relationship between the Father and Son. How is Jesus' divinity different from the Father's divinity? Dealing with the issue the Creed addressed, how is Jesus less God than is the Father?

It is paraphrasing, and a mistake, because the Creed is emphasizing that Jesus is God, not more or less God than the Father, and is the "exact representation of the Father".

By declaring Jesus divine but having a different (unique) divinity than the Father you are misinterpreting the word by your paraphrase.

"Unique and one of a kind" was not a choice because the point of the actual Creed is that Jesus is the SAME in kind as the Father.

You have a lot more patience than I, I would have given up repeating myself to those who refuse to listen by now.

 

[37818]

The Nicene Creed 381 AD Greek text.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·
τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου,
καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς,
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς,
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρὸς,
καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς,
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν·
εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν·
ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν·
προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν,
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. ἀμήν.

 

[JonC]

You have a lot more patience than I, I would have given up repeating myself to those who refuse to listen by now.

Well....to be fair I'm at work and nothings going on right now.

 

[37818]

. . . εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, . . . .

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

This is contrary to the written word of God.
Effectively denies the Son is the same YHWH as His Father.
Not begotten and not made.

 

[37818]

No. This mistake was already addressed in the Creed. What we are dealing with is the truth expressed in Hebrews 1:1 and Colossians 1:15. Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God. This does not mean Jesus is inferior (hence "begotten").

The Biblical truths of the written word of God is not in dispute.

 

[JonC]

. . . εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, . . . .

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

This is contrary to the written word of God.
Effectively denies the Son is the same YHWH as His Father.
Not begotten and not made.

"γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα" is the key you are missing by not paying attention to the context. This is theological - a theological use of "begotten". It doesn't not make sence to you that Jesus could be begotten by God but at the same time eternal and not produced by God because you have fixated on your own interpretation of an extracted word rather than allowing the context to influence the definition.

The entire point is John 1:1. You probably will argue that Jesus is not the Word because words are produced as well, and probably that John wrote a demonic lie when he placed Jesus in the beginning rather than before all ages. But you would be wrong.

The point is simple. It was designed to combat the heresies of the day - that Jesus was less than God, that Jesus was not eternal, or that Jesus became God at some point in time.

The issue here is Eternally Begotten (that Jesus is eternally God, the same God as the Father....hence the use of "begotten"). It is something I think you believe (I believe you are Christian) but something you fail to understand in antiquity.

 

[ParticularWife]

Question for all you Sunday School graduates,

Let's treat it as a catechism! In some ways I never graduated from Sunday School, I just continued it at New St. Andrew's and keep up on it with the boys today. That being said, these are Sunday School questions (you really just need to read the Gospel of John). My boys use Hercules Collins catechism, so they could probably answer you. Maybe I'll ask them later.

Q: Did God the Son always exist, or did He come from the Father?

A: God the Son always existed. From eternity, He is begotten of the Father, not made, and His generation is eternal, without beginning or end. This eternal generation signifies the Son’s essential relationship within the Trinity, proceeding from the Father while remaining of the same divine essence. Scripture declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1-2). And Jesus Himself prays, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5).

Q: Is He light from light, or was He always light?

A: He is “light from light,” as the Nicene Creed confesses, emphasizing the Son’s co-eternity with the Father. The Son is not only always light but derives His light from the Father eternally, for He is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). This radiant procession affirms that He shares the divine essence fully, yet without any implication of temporal origination. As Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). The light He bears is the eternal, uncreated light of God Himself.

Q: Is He the true God from the true God, or was He always the true God?

A: The Son is the true God from the true God. This confession reflects the eternal procession within the Godhead, whereby the Son derives His divine essence from the Father without division, subordination, or temporality. Jesus Himself testifies to this unity when He says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The Apostle John affirms, “This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). Thus, the Son has always been and will always be the true God, co-equal and consubstantial with the Father.

Q: Was He produced, or did He always exist?

A: He always existed. To suggest that the Son was produced is to err gravely, falling into heresies such as Arianism, which denies the full divinity of the Son. Scripture testifies that His coming forth is eternal: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah... from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2). Moreover, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). The Son’s existence is eternal, uncaused, and necessary within the triune being of God.

 

[ParticularWife]

Just because Arminianism is closer to the truth than Calvinism, does not mean we should embrace Arminianism.

Calvinism is certainly more correct on soteriology than Arminius, but Arminius agreed with Calvin on most other things and was better on theology than 70+% of pastors. Arminius was so dangerous precisely because he was almost orthodox. If he had come out preaching the Gospel of Leighton Flowers he would have been laughed off the pulpit.

 

[37818]

The issue here is Eternally Begotten . . .

Which has no Biblical bases whatsoever.

God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one YHWH.
On this we do not disagree, do we?

 

[JonC]

The Biblical truths of the written word of God is not in dispute.

You disputed it when expressed in the Creed. I get you simply misunderstood the language. But you still disputed it because they indicated Jesus was begotten of God, is eternal, and not produced by God (something that doesn't make sence to you).

Can one not believe that Jesus is eternally God, not less God than the Father, (Eternally Begotten) and be saved? Yes.

Can one reject the doctrine that Jesus is Eternally Begotten and be a Christian? I'd say "no".

Can one deny through misunderstanding the doctrine of the Eternally Begotten Son due to the language in Scripture or a Creed while in truth accepting the doctrine (what is taught) and be Christian? Yes, you do.

 

[JonC]

Calvinism is certainly more correct on soteriology than Arminius, but Arminius agreed with Calvin on most other things and was better on theology than 70+% of pastors. Arminius was so dangerous precisely because he was almost orthodox. If he had come out preaching the Gospel of Leighton Flowers he would have been laughed off the pulpit.

Correction - Arminius WAS an orthodox Calvinist (completely). Arminianism was reviewed and considered extreme but within orthodoxy during Arminius' life. It became unorthodox after his death.

 

[ParticularWife]

Correction - Arminius WAS an orthodox Calvinist (completely). Arminianism was reviewed and considered extreme but within orthodoxy during Arminius' life. It became unorthodox after his death.

I'm not as obsessed with condemning Arminians as some 4-point feral Calvinists, but you're making him sound more orthodox than he ever was. As noted, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) was a product of the Reformed schools, though 'Calvinist' would have been an unfamiliar term to him. His early career was marked by an outward conformity to orthodoxy. Yet, the seeds of dissent were sown. Gradually, his views diverged from the Reformed faith: the sovereign decree, the impotence of the human will, and the irresistibility of grace.

During his lifetime, Arminius remained within the bounds of the Dutch Reformed Church, his heterodoxy tolerated, and not explicitly condemned. The implications of his ideas were yet to be fully articulated. Arminius may not have intended to repudiate the Reformed synthesis, but his teachings inevitably led in that direction.

After his death, the Remonstrants crystallized their dissent. Arminius himself might not have fully embraced the system that bears his name, but his departure from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism is undeniable.

I am reminded of Origen, whose universalism, considered unorthodox by most theologians, can be partially excused by the relative infancy of Christian dogmatics in his day. Arminius, too, was a child of his time, though his errors have proven far more insidious.

 

[JonC]

I'm not as obsessed with condemning Arminians as some 4-point feral Calvinists, but you're making him sound more orthodox than he ever was. As noted, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) was a product of the Reformed schools, though 'Calvinist' would have been an unfamiliar term to him. His early career was marked by an outward conformity to orthodoxy. Yet, the seeds of dissent were sown. Gradually, his views diverged from the Reformed faith: the sovereign decree, the impotence of the human will, and the irresistibility of grace.

During his lifetime, Arminius remained within the bounds of the Dutch Reformed Church, his heterodoxy tolerated, and not explicitly condemned. The implications of his ideas were yet to be fully articulated. Arminius may not have intended to repudiate the Reformed synthesis, but his teachings inevitably led in that direction.

After his death, the Remonstrants crystallized their dissent. Arminius himself might not have fully embraced the system that bears his name, but his departure from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism is undeniable.

I am reminded of Origen, whose universalism, considered unorthodox by most theologians, can be partially excused by the relative infancy of Christian dogmatics in his day. Arminius, too, was a child of his time, though his errors have proven far more insidious.

Calvinism shifted to exclude his theology is what I mean.

His views were examined in 1608 with the conclusion that "the points of difference between the two professors, mostly relating to the subtle details of doctrine of predestination, were of minor importance and could co-exist" within orthodox Calvinism. At his death he was considered by the church to hold a belief within orthodox Calvinism.

After his death the Synod of Dort determined the Articles of the Remonstrance was unorthodox and offered a rebuttal.

I like Arminius' works and Calvin's works (mostly Calvin's pastoral writings on prayer). But I believe both Calvinism and Arminianism hold a serious error as a result of maintaining and reworking Roman Catholic doctrines (I agree with the "Radical Reformers" that Luther and Calvin did not go far enough away from the Roman Catholic Church and close enough to Scripture). BUT Calvin was a Catholic (begore he wasn't) and thought within those general bounds (I don't fault the man).

 

[JonC]

Which has no Biblical bases whatsoever.

God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one YHWH.
On this we do not disagree, do we?

Actually, it has a very strong biblical basis.

The doctrine is that Jesus is eternally God and eternally the Word. Although the Word became flesh the Word never became less than God. Jesus is eternally the Word, eternally HGod, not less God than the Father.

I know you find that demonic.

But for you to have a point you need to explain exactly when the second Person of the Trinity became the Word. You assume there was a beginning to the Word, but Scripture does not state this at all.

So when did the pre-Word become the Word? Why and how?

You can't because you invented a myth that somehow the Word (either in substance or role) had a beginning or was ever less than God.