The Historic Baptist View of the Nicene Creed

[37818]

See my post #9.

With respect, I don't think you have quite thought this through.
Romans 1:4. 'And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead.' Our Lord did not become the Son of God by His resurrection - He had always been that - but He was declared or shown to be so by rising from the dead. Colossians 1:8 is saying two things: Christ is the beginning of our salvation (Titus 1:2) being eternally begotten, and He is indeed the firstborn from the dead

Romans 1:3-4 affirms the meaning of Psalm 2:7 as explained per Acts of the Apostles 13:33. And not a thing regarding being "eternally begotten." Which is the major false teaching at issue.

 

[37818]

"Begotten" is a cause. God is not caused. If the Son of God is God too, the Son of God is uncaused too. Bad unBiblical tradition not withstanding.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The eternal Son of God is neither begotten nor made to have always been the Son of God. Not light from light, but the true Light.

Psalm 2:7. 'I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."'
The decree of God went forth in eternity. Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. Therefore it is not wrong to say that He has always been the Son of God.
The Nicene Creed is right as far as it goes.

Not even true.

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.

Psalm 2:7 is a prophecy of the Son of God's bodily resurrection.
Colossians 1:18, . . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . .

With respect, I don't think you have quite thought this through.
Romans 1:4. 'And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead.' Our Lord did not become the Son of God by His resurrection - He had always been that - but He was declared or shown to be so by rising from the dead. Colossians 1:8 is saying two things: Christ is the beginning of our salvation (Titus 1:2) being eternally begotten, and He is indeed the firstborn from the dead

YHWH is eternally begotten? That is not true. It is you who has not thought this through.
The Son of God has always been YHWH and the Son..

And in His incarnation, Romans 1:3-4, . . . Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . .

This raises two questions:
If the Son is not eternally begotten, in what sense is He a Son?
Can YHWH die?

Here we do not disagree, save that I think you do not quite understand the term "eternally."

These matters a a great mystery and, in a sense, we should remove our shoes for we are treading on holy ground. But I would ally myself with the authors of the Chalcedonian Definition (save that I tend to cringe at Mary being called "The birth-giver of God"), the Reformers, the Puritans and, yes, the early Baptists. Proverbs 22:28. 'Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.' Or at least, think very hard before you do so.

He was always the Son of God. There was never any becoming the Son. John 1:1-2.

Can YHWH die? Was YHWH begotten to be YHWH? No.

The term begotten was used in Psalm 2:7, . . . Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

He was already the Son. And on a day was begotten. And per Acts of the Apostles 13:33 referred to His resurrection.

I did write in this thread about Psalm 2:7 in Acts of the Apostles 13:33 giving it's meaning.

I agree with that. It is what I mean by 'eternally begotten.' But if He was not begotten in some way, then in what way is He the Son?

The Lord Jesus is YHWH; He died. So I ask you again, can YHWH die? See Acts of the Apostles 20:28.

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree. Psalms 2:7 begins, 'I will declare the decree' or possibly, 'I will declare the decree of the LORD.' The decrees of God date from eternity. There is no point in repeating what has already been written.

There is the argument. We are just going round in circles. If you want to tell me how the Lord Jesus can be God the Son without being begotten and how He can be YHWH and still die on the cross, I'm all ears. Otherwise, let's leave it there.

 

[37818]

There is the argument. We are just going round in circles. If you want to tell me how the Lord Jesus can be God the Son without being begotten and how He can be YHWH and still die on the cross, I'm all ears. Otherwise, let's leave it there.

You ask more than one question.
First the identity of God must first be understood.
Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: . . .
God's Hebrew Name is Who He Is. First person has been translated "I AM.". In the third person "Who Is." Typically translated as "LORD.". Transliterated as, Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH. Meaning [Self] Existent [One]. He being the uncaused Existence or all uncaused Really. Acts of the Apostles 17:28, For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; . . .

Now in John 1:1 the Son is presented as the Word.
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.

So the Son being the Word was both "with God" and was "God.". There is no such thing as "God the Son." Rather being "with God" being both "the Son of God" and "God.".

John 1:18, No man hath seen God at any time; the unique Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Genesis 12:7, And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . .

The LORD here is the unique Son of God who is the visible being God on behalf of God who is omnipresent.

 

[Mikey]

I would hold to the contents but not the creed itself.

is not holding to the contents not holding to the creed? Whats the difference in your view?

 

[37818]

I would hold to the contents but not the creed itself.

Agreeing with the contents is the same as agreeing with the creed.

 

[37818]

The eternal Son of God is neither begotten nor made to have always been the Son of God. Not light from light, but the true Light.

I am persuaded my view of the eternal Sonship and the Biblical Trinity of the three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and.the Holy.Spirit.being the same LORD God to be better than the Nicene creed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't propose to argue any more on this thread. Here is C.H. Spurgeon on Psalms 2:7.
The dispute concerning the eternal filiation of our Lord betrays more of presumptive curiosity than of reverent faith. It is an attempt to explain where it is better to adore. We could give rival expositions of this verse, but we forbear. The controversy is one of the most unprofitable which ever engaged the pens of theologians.

However, since the title of this thread is "The Historic Baptist view of the Nicene Creed," I offer this from the 1689 Confession:-
--The Father was not derived from any other being; He was neither brought into being by, nor did He issue from, any other being.
--The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
--The Holy Sprit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
--All three are infinite, without beginning and are therefore only one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative qualities and also their personal relations.
By "peculiar relative qualities" and "personal relations" The 17th Century Baptists meant the asymmetrical relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity. The Son, for example, prays to the Father; the Father does not pray to the Son. The Son suffers and dies; the Father and Spirit do not suffer or die. Even in heaven, the Son intercedes to the Father on our behalf. The Father does not intercede to the Son for us. Moreover, in John 5:26 we read, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself." This cannot be something given to our Lord in the days of His flesh, for self-existence has no beginning.

I'm done on this thread. I will only add that in any discussions concerning the Trinity, we must steer a straight and careful course between the Scylla of Tritheism and the Charybdis of Unitarianism or "Jesus-onlyism.'

 

[Deacon]

Psalm 2:7. 'I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."'
The decree of God went forth in eternity. Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. Therefore it is not wrong to say that He has always been the Son of God.
The Nicene Creed is right as far as it goes.

Recently a pastor of my Retirement Community taught a series entitled, "Jesus in the Old Testament."

At the very first session, he noted that the title was designed to draw a crowd;
it was actually incorrect.
He delineated that Jesus is the incarnation ("made human") of the Son of God.
Jesus is not found in the Old Testament...what we see in the OT is the Son of God.

That is clearly communicated in the Nicene Creed.

Rob

 

[37818]

Recently a pastor of my Retirement Community taught a series entitled, "Jesus in the Old Testament."

At the very first session, he noted that the title was designed to draw a crowd;
it was actually incorrect.
He delineated that Jesus is the incarnation ("made human") of the Son of God.
Jesus is not found in the Old Testament...what we see in the OT is the Son of God.

That is clearly communicated in the Nicene Creed.

Rob

The false teaching of "eternally begotten" is being avoided. It is neither taught in the OT or NT.

 

[Mikey]

The false teaching of "eternally begotten" is being avoided. It is neither taught in the OT or NT.

do you believe that "begotten" means created?

 

[37818]

do you believe that "begotten" means created?

Begotten is an origin.
A day is a place in time.
Now in Psalm 2:7 the Son was already the Son before the day God said He begot Him. The Apostle Paul said it referred to Christ's resurrection. Acts 13:33.

 

[Van]

Question: Do you affirm the Nicene Creed?
Answer: No
Basis:
1) God the Father did not make or create God the Son, He revealed or set Him forth.
2) I do not believe in one "water" baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I do believe in one "spiritual baptism into Christ" for the forgiveness of sins.

I see about 15 posts that mention Psalm 2:7 and the unfortunate translation choice of begotten. Since, God the Son was not begotten, we see endless quibbling brought on by poor translation. What is the actual idea? God revealed or set Him forth or brought forth His Son.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Question: Do you affirm the Nicene Creed?
Answer: No
Basis:
1) God the Father did not make or create God the Son, He revealed or set Him forth.
2) I do not believe in one "water" baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I do believe in one "spiritual baptism into Christ" for the forgiveness of sins.

I see about 15 posts that mention Psalm 2:7 and the unfortunate translation choice of begotten. Since, God the Son was not begotten, we see endless quibbling brought on by poor translation. What is the actual idea? God revealed or set Him forth or brought forth His Son.

There is no wrong translation here, Paul defined the word.

 

[Blank]

I see nothing unscriptural about it but I wish there had been a sentence or two touching on the Scriptures themselves.

 

[Blank]

..