The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[37818]

To whom it may concern.

Stop accusing me of what I have not claimed.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Also, at times seems to be looking at doctrines only thru the lens of specific translations, such hw KJVO view Kjv

 

[JesusFan]

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

No, as biblestated to us Father is head over Christ?

 

[Blank]

I explicitly said what part of the Nicene Creed was false doctrine.

And I ask, what part of the Creed is false doctrine?

Apparently God crediting a sow's ear thus making it a silk purse is beyond understanding.

Why an analogy that assumes too much?

Did anyone say Pastors are regenerate? Nope, so the point seems also beyond understanding.

The question was, "Who said all pastors are regenerate?". If you can't understand the question, then why dialogue?

No need to discuss the false doctrine of Calvinism on this thread.

Since you are making the assertion, 'Calvinism is false'. Would you mind pointing out areas of its 'falseness'?

 

[JonC]

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

"We" don't really have that problem. But you may, depending on where you stand theologically.

We don't have that problem for several reasons.

First, Logos implies a "coming forth" and existed eternally. Second, Scripture states that it is the Son who reveals the Father, and that the Father sent the Son. Those of us (the "we") believe in the immutable nature of God. Third, we see this in the Biblical presentation of Creation. God spoke and all things were created through and for Christ. Fourth, Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God.

I understand those are not things you believe and instead present the Father and Son as having a beginning as Father and Son. Point is, the problem is yours, not ours ...no "we:

 

[37818]

There are three or four views for the Biblical Trinity. And their differences are regarding the Sonship of the Word.

 

[Mikey]

The series on the Nicene Creed by Darrel Bock from Dallas Theological Seminary for those interested.

 

[Mikey]

 

[Van]

No, as biblestated to us Father is head over Christ?

It seems "equal absurdity" is beyond you.

 

[JesusFan]

It seems "equal absurdity" is beyond you.

Well, it seems that you had developed your own "peculiar Theology" in many areas

 

[Van]

And I ask, what part of the Creed is false doctrine?

Why an analogy that assumes too much?

The question was, "Who said all pastors are regenerate?". If you can't understand the question, then why dialogue?

Since you are making the assertion, 'Calvinism is false'. Would you mind pointing out areas of its 'falseness'?

I still see nothing but diversion from the topic of the thread.

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. ​

 

[Van]

"We" don't really have that problem. But you may, depending on where you stand theologically.

We don't have that problem for several reasons.

First, Logos implies a "coming forth" and existed eternally. Second, Scripture states that it is the Son who reveals the Father, and that the Father sent the Son. Those of us (the "we") believe in the immutable nature of God. Third, we see this in the Biblical presentation of Creation. God spoke and all things were created through and for Christ. Fourth, Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God.

I understand those are not things you believe and instead present the Father and Son as having a beginning as Father and Son. Point is, the problem is yours, not ours ...no "we:

Folks, once again poppycock views have been attributed to me, changing the subject from the falsehood of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Van]

Well, it seems that you had developed your own "peculiar Theology" in many areas

Once again a poster vainly tries to change the subject from the falsehood of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Van]

Section of Nicene Creed with truth inserted and original falsehood removed.

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.

 

[Blank]

I still see nothing but diversion from the topic of the thread.

​

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. ​

I only responded with questions of the matters you brought up. So if there is a diversion it would have been started by you.

 

[Van]

I only responded with questions of the matters you brought up. So if there is a diversion it would have been started by you.

Yet another change the subject from the falsehood of Nicene Creed.

Section of Nicene Creed with truth inserted and original falsehood removed.

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.

 

[Van]

Did God, Yahweh, have a beginning? Or are the three Persons of the Trinity eternal? Now all you Sunday School graduates, please acknowledge the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal, with no beginning. Thus God the Son did NOT come from God the Father. God the Son is not Light from Light, i.e. not out of the Father's pre-existing light.

Anyone affirming the Nicene Creed simply accepts tradition that makes God's word to no effect.

 

[JonC]

Folks, once again poppycock views have been attributed to me, changing the subject from the falsehood of the Nicene Creed.

Folks....who ever you are...the point of the post "we" don't really have that problem. But @Van may, depending on where he stand theologically.

We don't have that problem for several reasons.

First, Logos implies a "coming forth" and existed eternally. Second, Scripture states that it is the Son who reveals the Father, and that the Father sent the Son. Those of us (the "we") believe in the immutable nature of God. Third, we see this in the Biblical presentation of Creation. God spoke and all things were created through and for Christ. Fourth, Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God.

So "we", who believe that Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God, and that God sent His Son, have no problem saying that Jesus is God, that Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God and to see Jesus IS to see God.

 

[37818]

@Van,
It seems you confuse γεννηθέντα with Μονογενῆ used in your translation of the Creed.

 

[JesusFan]

Did God, Yahweh, have a beginning? Or are the three Persons of the Trinity eternal? Now all you Sunday School graduates, please acknowledge the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal, with no beginning. Thus God the Son did NOT come from God the Father. God the Son is not Light from Light, i.e. not out of the Father's pre-existing light.

Anyone affirming the Nicene Creed simply accepts tradition that makes God's word to no effect.

Only begotten refers to Jesus eternality NOTHING to do with the Father being His maker, His "first cause"