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.
Though I'm not trying to say that anyone in particular holding to the Nicene or Apostles' Creed believes in subordination, that concept is easily gleaned from the Apostles' Creed, though you went speciously to the Nicene Creed for your refutation.
The AC's first paragraph could readily shape thinking that the Father did the creating where Jesus apparently didn't, since he wasn't yet "begotten." I'm not trying to say you or any other particular believer holds to that, I'm much more pointing to the fallibility of what men have written.
I'm ready to concede that a creed can be useful, but not any moreso than I would concede than handouts for a Bible class could be useful.
Regarding being begotten, the Nicene Creed juxtaposes that with "not made" as if these are the choices one is left with regarding how Jesus came about. Again this would be a mistake, and I'm not trying to say any one person in particular hold to that, but I'll bet many communicants haven't yet sorted it out accurately from the creeds.
Jesus begotten-ness has nothing to do with Jesus' origin, only his one-time-only change in taking on the form of a bond-servant. But again, a straightforward reading of the Nicene more quickly leads one to make a mistake here, even if one could excuse the first plain old mistake of saying, "eternally begotten."
Where I've spent time, I find the frequent recitation of the creeds takes time away from the rest of Bible study. Some churches are more interested with sectarian interpretation of their founders' pet religious concerns than preparing Christians to find answers for their lives through letting the Holy Spirit bring to mind what they've read and heard from the Bible (and no, I don't think the HS brings to mind what one says in a creed when its words are not the inspired text).
IOW, a creed's typical usefulness is a most clearly as a distraction from the Bible.
HF