The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[JesusFan]

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.

Another would be when Paul describes Jesus was and is the visible image of the invisible God

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The concept they were addressing was that Arians saw Jesus as first born created, so they would see begotten as being the First cause of him existing by the father, and they chose to shw that only begotten refers to eternal causation, as never was a time when He was noeternal word of the Father period

 

[JesusFan]

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




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.

The Creed though Never asserted nor expressed Jesus had a first cause

 

[JesusFan]

. . . 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.

Eternally begotten refers to the existence of the Father to Jesus, and not that the father was the first cause of him, as that would be the very Arianism creed was written to refute

 

[JesusFan]

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.

before His incanation was the eternal word of the Father who assumed humanflesh and thus became then Son of God

 

[JesusFan]

Please reword, as it is unintelligible.

Ok wait, are you giving your opinion about Van?

Just was saying that God cannot credit as with merit having "saving faith", as that faith was not produced by us, but was a gift to us

 

[JesusFan]

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.

That argument of his at times was used to support Jesus as being the adopted Son the Father

 

[Van]

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.

As I said, we are done, you are addressing me rather than the topic.

 

[JonC]

Another would be when Paul describes Jesus was and is the visible image of the invisible God

Yes. And the language highlights the problem some, here @37818 , has by extracting words and not allowing context to dictate meaning. Some woukd argue the verse false as Jesus is God, not just an image of God. Some woukd argue against "representation" for the same reasons.

But the verses (and the Creed) are correct. One just has to keep things in context.


I think sometimes people just want to argue against what has been considered Christian faith. That's probably human nature. People tend to enjoy condemning orthodox faith and believing past generations lacking intelligence. It's like children thinking their parents know nothing.

 

[JonC]

As I said, we are done, you are addressing me rather than the topic.

Yes, I responded to you in kind. But you will recover, and perhaps learn from the experience.

 

[Van]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Nonsense. If God the Son always existed we can say with equal absurdity, that God the Father came from God the Son.

 

[Van]

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.

Nonsense, we should embrace truth, even if that means tossing errant traditions of the past, that made God's word to no effect, on the dust pile of history.

 

[Van]

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?

I do not see anything needing a response. I explicitly said what part of the Nicene Creed was false doctrine.
Apparently God crediting a sow's ear thus making it a silk purse is beyond understanding.
Did anyone say Pastors are regenerate? Nope, so the point seems also beyond understanding.
No need to discuss the false doctrine of Calvinism on this thread.

 

[Van]

Yes, I responded to you in kind. But you will recover, and perhaps learn from the experience.

Still posting about me and not the topic.

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]

Still posting about me and not the topic.

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.​

Your statement has Jesus being uniquely divine with Gid before all ages.

The problem is "uniquely divine". You need to explain how Jesus' divinity differs from the divinity of the Father. Exactly how is Jesus' divinity unique?

The reason this needs to be addressed is this is the purpose of the Creed's use of "begotten" to emphasize that the Son and Father are both eternally God (the Son is not less than God) with the same divine nature.

 

[Van]

Your statement has Jesus being uniquely divine with Gid before all ages.

The problem is "uniquely divine". You need to explain how Jesus' divinity differs from the divinity of the Father. Exactly how is Jesus' divinity unique?

The reason this needs to be addressed is this is the purpose of the Creed's use of "begotten" to emphasize that the Son and Father are both eternally God (the Son is not less than God) with the same divine nature.

Uniquely divine with the Father indicates both are uniquely divine. The corrected translation addresses the faults in the English translation I posted.

 

[37818]

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).

Your argument and is not my view. Do you actually believe God is a male parent?

 

[JonC]

Your argument and is not my view. Do you actually believe God is a male parent?

No, of course not. But if you honestly treat "begotten" like you do "son" you have to conclude that Jesus had a beginning. That was my point. The word "son" means "a male offspring".

The difference between "son" and "begotten" is simple, although both are similar words.

Eternal Son points to an eternal relationship between the Father and Son.

Eternally Begotten points to this Eternal relationship AND that Jesus is eternally God, not less God than the Father.

 

[37818]

The Nicene Creed is not Holy Scripture.

 

[Van]

If we set aside the "begotten" mistranslation of the Greek monogenes, the Greek still has the problem of light [ek - out of] light.