The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[JesusFan]

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.

What is supreme irony here on this topic is that the Arians themselves of the time knew fully well that the Creed exposed their view regarding jesus was conmemned as being heretical by its very wording and terminology

 

[37818]

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.

You think I misunderstood the Creed.
I have given an explanation on two issues.

Where is the Holy Scripture that teaches Christ is the true Light out from light?

Where is the Holy Scripture that teaches Christ was begotten out from the Father before all ages?

 

[Blank]

Then we disagree concerning the Nicene creed.

So what part of the Creed do you disagree with?

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.

I don't recall imputation being part of the Creed.

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.

Actually, 'our' faith is a gift from God, whose object is the sinless ONE.

Take the example of the trained Pastor who knows all the right words, but his faith is not deeply rooted.

Who said all pastors are regenerate?

 

[JonC]

What is supreme irony here on this topic is that the Arians themselves of the time knew fully well that the Creed exposed their view regarding jesus was conmemned as being heretical by its very wording and terminology

True. That is one problem with historical creeds. When enough time has passed people remove them from their historical context and invent new meanings (as @37has done).

In the end it doesn't matter because @37818 affirms what was taught. He just doesn't understand the words used.

I heard a sermon on John 3:16 once interpreting the verse as "God loved us so much that....". The preacher didn't teach anything wrong, per se, but he missed the point of the verse because the English usage of a word had shifted over a few hundred years.

This is where @37818 is with this issue. He believes correct doctrine but does not understand that doctrine as is expressed in a specific creed.

It only matters to me because I love historical theology. That's what I concentrated on studying as a grad student. I find it interesting, fascinating even.

I suppose a car enthusiast would have the same issue with me calling one engine something it is not. I've never studied cars. Not interested.

In the grand scheme of things he believes the doctrine, and that is all that really matters for his personal growth and study of Scripture. He doesn't need to understand the creed as long as he grasps God's Word.

 

[JonC]

You think I misunderstood the Creed.
I have given an explanation on two issues.

Where is the Holy Scripture that teaches Christ is the true Light out from light?

Where is the Holy Scripture that teaches Christ was begotten out from the Father before all ages?

1. Hebrews 1:1 and Colossians 1:15, to name a couple off hand. The point is that Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God. If Jesus is Light then God is Light. And if Jesus is eternally Word then He has revealed this Light to man. When we see Jesus we see Him that sent Him.

2. John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. This should have been clear when the Creed explained the relationship by stating that Jesus was begotten but not produced. "Begotten before all ages.....begotten but not produced" was to combat the heresy that Jesus was not eternal God.

 

[37818]

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

Non-sense. The Word was both with God and was God. God always was.

Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God . . .
John 1:1-2, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

 

[Blank]

"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).

I realize all that. Except what 19th century 'Baptist scholars' held to the catholic faith? They would have had to jettison the Solas of the 'Reformation'. Which brings up the article of the N.C. which (IMHO), is missing, and that is 'the importance the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures'. After all , don't the supporters of the Creed, claim it is based on Scripture?

 

[37818]

1. Hebrews 1:1 and Colossians 1:15, to name a couple off hand. The point is that Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God. If Jesus is Light then God is Light. And if Jesus is eternally Word then He has revealed this Light to man. When we see Jesus we see Him that sent Him.

John 1:9, . . . was the true Light, . . .
1 John 1:5, . . . that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. This should have been clear when the Creed explained the relationship by stating that Jesus was begotten but not produced. "Begotten before all ages.....begotten but not produced" was to combat the heresy that Jesus was not eternal God.

The Word, He is the uncaused Cause. John 1:3, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[37818]

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.

. . . Eternally Begotten Son . . . . Not Biblical.

But then so it is also to say the Eternal Son. Which I do believe is true He is the Eternal Son.
But YHWH is not begotten. Genesis 12:7, And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . . . Per John 1:18, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

[37818]

The Son of God was begotten twice.

In His incarnation to become a Son of man.

And as the incarnate Son of God in being resurrected as the first immortal man per Acts of the Apostles 13:33, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

 

[JonC]

. . . Eternally Begotten Son . . . . Not Biblical.

But then so it is also to say the Eternal Son. Which I do believe is true He is the Eternal Son.
But YHWH is not begotten. Genesis 12:7, And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . . . Per John 1:18, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Except it is. "Son" is to say "begotten" (that is what a son is). But "son" in the context of "Eternal Son" (a synonym for "eternally begotten") is speaking of an eternal relationship between the Father and Son. It goes back to "like begats like" in a way - Jesus is eternally God.

I think you get the issue. Many object to using "eternal Son". This was the objection they tried to address with the Nicene Creed (that the Son had a beginning but no end). Part of the problem is that there is a time when Jesus was born as man. But the Creed deals with an eternal relationship insisting that the Wod always existed as God, but not God the Father.

That said, "eternal Son" and "eternally begotten" are saying the same thing. The Son is eternally YHWH.

 

[Mikey]

This video is part of a series looking at the Nicean Creed. This specific video looks at the Person of Jesus and the part of the Nicean Creed listed below. Discussion on the begotteness starts at 34:00 minute mark.

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.

 

[37818]

That said, "eternal Son" and "eternally begotten" are saying the same thing. The Son is eternally YHWH.

We disagree.

The Biblical use of the Son of God being begotten is Psalm 2:7.
Acts 13:33.
Hebrews 1:5.
Hebrews 5:5.

 

[JonC]

We disagree.

The Biblical use of the Son of God being begotten is Psalm 2:7.
Acts 13:33.
Hebrews 1:5.
Hebrews 5:5.

Yes, we disagree. But you miss the point of our disagreement.

A son is the next generation male. This implies a beginning. But both of our terms use "eternal", negating a natural definition in favor of a theological meaning. It is extraordinary dishonest to reject "begotten" for implying a beginning while not recognizing that "son" implies a beginning in the normal sesen as well. "Begotten" merely denotes that the Son and Father are the same God whereas "Son" allowes for the Son to have a different kind of nature than God.

The only difference between your view and mine is I insist that the Father and Son are eternally the same God while you allow for a difference as a son may be via adoption.

This is why "begotten" has been so important throughout Christian history. It guards against the heresy that the Father and Son are different in terms of divinity by insisting both to be the same eternal God.

 

[37818]

The only difference between your view and mine is I insist that the Father and Son are eternally the same God while you allow for a difference as a son may be via adoption.

No. A false accusation.
I hold God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit being three distinct Persons who are the One and the same LORD [Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH] God.

The Son has always been both the Son with God and the same God per John 1:1-3.

 

[JesusFan]

True. That is one problem with historical creeds. When enough time has passed people remove them from their historical context and invent new meanings (as @37has done).

In the end it doesn't matter because @37818 affirms what was taught. He just doesn't understand the words used.

I heard a sermon on John 3:16 once interpreting the verse as "God loved us so much that....". The preacher didn't teach anything wrong, per se, but he missed the point of the verse because the English usage of a word had shifted over a few hundred years.

This is where @37818 is with this issue. He believes correct doctrine but does not understand that doctrine as is expressed in a specific creed.

It only matters to me because I love historical theology. That's what I concentrated on studying as a grad student. I find it interesting, fascinating even.

I suppose a car enthusiast would have the same issue with me calling one engine something it is not. I've never studied cars. Not interested.

In the grand scheme of things he believes the doctrine, and that is all that really matters for his personal growth and study of Scripture. He doesn't need to understand the creed as long as he grasps God's Word.

When we study and/or use the historical creeds and confesses, must remember to read them as byproducts of their times, as were written to address many times specific heresies and theological concerns, and must be understand in context as to what they meant by their chosen words and terms selected in those documents, not reading into them modern terms and definitions

 

[JesusFan]

So what part of the Creed do you disagree with?

I don't recall imputation being part of the Creed.

Actually, 'our' faith is a gift from God, whose object is the sinless ONE.

Who said all pastors are regenerate?

Van just cannot grasp the since Goid Himself gives to us "saving faith", how he credit us for producing what he gave to as a free gift?

 

[JonC]

No. A false accusation.
I hold God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit being three distinct Persons who are the One and the same LORD [Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH] God.

The Son has always been both the Son with God and the same God per John 1:1-3.

By your argument (ignoring theological implications of words) you are saying that the Son had a beginning ("son" refers to generation - a male begat from a parent).

BUT theologically both "Son" and "Begotten Son" refers to a relationship. You are correct in your position that the Son is eternal. BUT you are wrong to exclude "begotten" because "begotten: simply means that the Son and Father are eternally God (same nature and divine essence) as opposed to the Son being less God than the Father. This was the purpose "begotten was added.

The issue I have is you use a word theologically (Son) and mot to indicate a male generated from a previous generation but can't comprehend that this is how "begotten" is used. That is not honest treatment of words.

Eternally Begotten Son means that the Son is eternally God. Eternal Son excludes the truth that the Son is God, the same divine nature and divine essence as the Father.

 

[JonC]

When we study and/or use the historical creeds and confesses, must remember to read them as byproducts of their times, as were written to address many times specific heresies and theological concerns, and must be understand in context as to what they meant by their chosen words and terms selected in those documents, not reading into them modern terms and definitions

I absolutely agree.

"Begotten" was used to emphasize that the Son is eternally YHWH, not less God than the Father. This was used to address heresies of that time.

 

[Blank]

Van just cannot grasp the since Goid Himself gives to us "saving faith", how he credit us for producing what he gave to as a free gift?

Please reword, as it is unintelligible.

Ok wait, are you giving your opinion about Van?