A Catholic scholar makes a modern case for Christianity's creeds

Nowhere does the Bible suggest Jesus was begotten in any eternal sense.

Earthly fatherhood in some way reflects heavenly Fatherhood. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Jesus was "begotten" of the Father in some logical sense, since God cannot change.

Propositional rationalism and the dogmatism of the most devout runs the same error you cite. A belief in the sufficiency of the creed can lead to the same error as the sufficiency of a bible. In the end the status of language is in question, not the Bible, the creed, or a Constitution. That must become apparent or history has given nothing.

since God cannot change

Because you apparently strongly want to say the above, you are trying to say that Jesus did not do something really unique, new and confined to a particular time and place in His taking on the form of a bondservant?

I would not care to exercise such exegesis.

I do think the concept of fatherhood is a more relevant feature properly associated with Jesus' begottenness moreso than the typical parishoner's concept of The Father's predominantly being involved as the Creator, as one might (even interlinearly) get from the Apostle's Creed.

You'll note that logic has only been cloven to as a hermeneutical principle in the most recent century or two. Being a reflection (or shadow) of reality is probably a more time-honored tradition. Moreover, eternal begottenness is not any biblical writer's point, as best I can tell. If it's true, I think it's outside the Bible's revelation.

An important correction to your statement: The Nicene Creed states that the "Son of God" was "begotten, not made"--that is a reference to the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Son, whose differentiation from the Father is a matter of "begetting" and not "creating." When the "Son of God" entered human history, he "became flesh" and the human-divine reality was "Jesus of Nazareth." The "Son of God" is eternal, but "Jesus of Nazareth" began extra-uterine life at birth.

I'm confident saying the Bible is sufficient and that baptized Christian believers in the first few centuries were in no way deficient (their sins having been forgiven in Christ), though they had not yet heard or become obedient to anything in any of the creeds which were later to be penned.

Do you supppose God widened the circle of responsibility of Christians with the councils' endorsements of those creeds? In no way is there reason to think that.

What you have suggested in a few posts here is correct: the Creed in itself is no substitute for the life of a committee Christian. And indeed, note that neither creed even talks about moral choices!

And that is the clue to the purpose of the Creeds: they arose in response to errors held by other supposed Christians!! There is no time or space to tell the story here (see Kelly's Early Christian Creeds), but the point is that at various times in the first few centuries of Christianity, there arose certain movements that seemed innovative and consistent with Christianity; but on later reflection, they were inconsistent (the whole Arian controversy can be boiled down that way). So there was determined, either informally or in council, a formula that distinguished between what was permitted and what was not.

You seriously hold that Jesus came into being with Jesus' being born of Mary? You don't think John 1 refers to Jesus? You think that when Genesis recounts, "Let Us make man in Our image," there was a Father and Holy Spirit only, in which Jesus had no part?

Yikes!

OTOH, as I noted earlier, something unique certainly happened in Bethlehem a couple of millenia ago. Much changed. Jesus, as flesh and bone--not spirit--did for a time walk, but no longer walks the Earth. I'd guess you and I would agree about that, but that doesn't at all focus any truth to reveal that Jesus was eternally begotten.

Oh, no, I think you have misunderstood me. The Nicene Creed, reflecting Johannine Theology, states that the Word of God = The Son of God is eternal. The Word became flesh, ie, became a human being, ie, became Jesus of Nazareth, who had both human nature and divine nature, in one divine personhood. So, yes, it is orthodox Christian teaching that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist until being born of Mary. John 1 does not refer to Jesus--it refers to the Eternal Word.

I am curious about what you mean when you say, "Jesus, as flesh and bone--not spirit--did for a time walk"--how do you understand John 1,14 (logos sarx egeneto)?

I'm sanguine with what you wrote.

I don't happen to hold that the canonization of the Bible applies to the Creeds. I would know of no reason to say that such would apply.

To draw upon the historical background as I believe you have concerning these creeds, would there not be as strong if not stronger authority to recite the admonition of the Jerusalem elders concerning non-Jewish belivers, or Paul's letter to the Corinthians to fix their problems than to spend a couple minutes of every liturgical exercise reciting what these latter day saints penned?

Being fallible men, I think The Creeds' authors thought just a little too highly of themselves than they had a right to think.

The challenge posed by the errors called for a very short formula that would encapsulate the right response. Sure, a creed needed (and needs) to be explained and supported by texts of Scripture. But in the context of a baptismal ceremony or a philosphical/theological controversy, a short formula is all they can do.

I mistyped when ticking out "not spirit." I should have written, "not only sprit."

I grant that I probably misunderstood you to some degree. Furthermore, one message I sent to you I think I thought I was writing to cornelis !?

"Son of God" entered human history was probably meant pretty "flat-footedly" rather than as I took it to be some eternal truth to which you hold.

re: logos sarx egeneto, how do you like "made manifest?"

If Jesus were only in existence while on Earth, how could he take his seat "at God's right hand," or "humble himself" before his time on Earth?

Best wishes,
HF

If most everyone in Christendom can relax about what the Jerusalem elders were struggling with and what Paul was working on with the Corinthians, why can't the Reformationist's religious descendents similarly quit wrestling with the Arians (who do anything but abound among us)?

Well, it looks like missteps occured in both directions!

Now, about your question: If Jesus were only in existence while on Earth, how could he take his seat "at God's right hand," or "humble himself" before his time on Earth?

I'm not sure what precise text you are alluding to in the first quote, but the second one comes from Philippians 2. And even there, Paul is saying something very similar to John 1,14: The Son, eternal, did not hold divine status as something to be grasped onto, but willingly took on the human condition, unto death on the cross. It was Paul's way to express that his own sufferings fit the pattern established by Christ.

I maintain that if one seeks for clearly God-authorized-and-admonished, New Testament thou-shalts or shalt-nots or beliefs about who God is, why should we not rather do as the Holy Spirit has been revealed to do among us, that is, call to mind what the Eternal Word has made manifest among us?

To in any way favor the ritualized Creeds over the canonized Bible text is a disservice to God's all-sufficient Word-made-manifest-as-Flesh. Any why do our tickled ears seek after other and more? To bash the Arians, you say?

Re: # 35. Now I understand. Well, the purpose was that a creed stated things more succinctly and clearer than Scripture--and used language that the misguided were using. The goal was the distinguish the correct notion from the incorrect one(s). There are many times when a plain statement from Scripture is too vague or can be interpreted in a variety of ways or can be countered with another statement from Scripture. In the end, the goal of a credal formula is to make a declaration: here are the acceptable and unacceptable terms of the debate, and that's that. And, yes, there are Arians still around, it's just that most Catholics (I'll talk about my "tribe" for a moment) aren't up for or equipped for a dispute. But the Arians still need to be opposed, and believe me, they can quote Scripture as well as we can, so Sola Scriptura is not going to work on them!

No. Jesus' Incarnation is a singular event, yet His Incarnation does not reflect a change in His nature. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

You'll note that logic has only been cloven to as a hermeneutical principle in the most recent century or two.

Did logic play any part in the promulgation of the doctrine of the Trinity? In the rejection of Arianism? Certainly Aquinas and the great medieval scholastics synthesized Scripture and reason.

Being a reflection (or shadow) of reality is probably a more time-honored tradition. Moreover, eternal begottenness is not any biblical writer's point, as best I can tell. If it's true, I think it's outside the Bible's revelation.

I don't think that's true. Jesus speaks of "my Father in heaven." Certainly it's reasonable to assume that a kind of Father/Son relationship exists between the two, the exact definition of which depends both upon Scripture and philosophy.

Argh! Your #31 deserves reply. So much for trying to get other work done, too.

Which precise text? Several. "Right hand" in Bible Gateway's Word search (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?), constraining to NT works nicely to find some two dozen plus passages referring to Jesus seated at God's right hand.

Did you care for my idea of "made manifest (concerning John 1:14)?"

I see the "grasped" not as in attaining but being held, having already savored it, plus that would help against the Arians. Paul notes he analogously should not desire being with Christ when his continued work on Earth and among the Philippians will affirm God' s confidence in him.

BTW, my on-line New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia suggests (as I had thought earlier, but was aroused momentarily by your #35 to think otherwise, potentially), "[Arianism] is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes."

Oh, and cornelis, do you see any bibliolatry in Mt. 4:4, Mt. 15:6, Mt 24:35, Philippians 2:15, (and about 200 other places in the NT) "appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life."

I'm heartened to see we agree in many ways. There are many ways to reason and/or synthesize that are not logic, though perhaps you mean methodical.

I very much agree that the Father / Son relationship is Biblical (true), however, concerning [A] kind of Father/Son relationship exists between the two, the exact definition of which depends both upon Scripture and philosophy" we don't see eye-to-eye. Inasmuch as God's ways are vastly superior to ours, and as God's Word is subject to no man's interpretation, I'd say no Bible truth is reasonably subject to (man's) philosophy.

If "[you] don't think [eternal begottenness being outside the Bible's revelation is] true," I welcome you to cite whatever Bible passage(s) you believe make it so. That would be very much to the point.

I apologize for an incomplete reply as I have so little time right now.

"Made manifest" is probably the translation for the second half of Jn 1,14. "Egeneto" is usually translated simply "became."

We can debate the meaning of that verb in Philippians 2, but it is out of bounds to bring in which word would work best against the Arians, who did not come on the scene until the end of the 4th century.

And I caution you against using the Catholic Encyclopedia from newadvent. It is the on-line version of the print encycl. of 1908. It may have been the case that there were not then, nor now, people who would be proud to say they are Arian, but trust me, scratch the surface of many errors in Christian thought and right there you will find some form of Arianism (relative denial of divinity) or Docetism (relative denial of humanity). It's very hard to get the right formula.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.