Replies

Indeed, Jesus was begotten as men are (Lk 24:39), some two millenia ago. However, there is no Biblical revelation indicating any eternal subordination for Jesus. There is no indication (as attempted to be foisted in the Nicene) that while the Father did the creating and Jesus was eternally being born or somehow something less than Creator God, the Father.

The Word was God and was present at the beginning. Jesus is neither eternally begotten, nor did he spring into existence-- either those two millenia ago or in some way reasonably called "begetting."

I don't mind too much if people are trying to say this or that is central or essential--presumably for some positive and godly purpose--so long as what's stated is not in conflict with the rest of Scripture.

At the same time, I don't think it useful or profitable that believers use such core beliefs as stated in a creed to insulate themselves from the rest of scripture, as if such were not required. I'd be as reticent as walking on 1/8" ice as I would to try to call any straightforward Biblical statement a "margin concept," especially less so when such a thing is repeatedly found in the Bible.

Though I'm certainly aware of the contemporaneous desire to teach against Aryanism, for example, it seems specious to try to use a creed for one to use such a creed as a weapon against others believers with whom one would disagree on one's pet beliefs, as this author points out is his intent.

I do generally agree with VOA, though when did we succumb to finding comfort in resting on the laurels of the brotherhood of churches? That, too, would be sinful man, as is often readily discernable.

I grant I could learn perhaps something from reading the book, but I don't yet see a reason to pick up the book from the citation above.

I'm trying to understand your reply. It seems to me a change of point from, at first:

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

to:

there is no Biblical revelation indicating any eternal subordination for Jesus.

This is different. And no, to answer the second, "subordinate is not part of orthodoxy, and this is also so stated in the creed:

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

And you are also aware of the orthodox formulation of the trinity, with the persons not ranked or subordinated.

So, I'm not sure how this part of your reply discusses the original question, but it does once again illustrate how the creed can be useful.

I'm also unclear as to where this part of your reply leads:

Jesus is neither eternally begotten, nor did he spring into existence-- either those two millenia ago or in some way reasonably called "begetting."

Neither eternally begotten nor not eternally begotten?

Again, to me this illustrates the value of the creed. It succintly and clearly states the key points of faith; I find it more meaningful and clear than your description - no offense intended.

No, the creed is not meant as a substitute for all things Christian, not meant to replace our relationship with Jesus, our Christian living, salvation or transformation.

It has it's place and its purpose and value from long ago – and as our discussion shows, it still has value and usefulness today.

Thanks very much for your reply.