As I said, what I said, doen't even resemble Arianism. I have no idea what "created physical catagories" refers to. Since you are insisting on claimiing what I said is Arianism, you'll have to show why theat is so, because I never even hinted at "God created Himself". I have no need to repent for my thoughts. They do not offend God. They offend those that demand I obey them w/o question.
"And learn the terms of art before arguing theology: economy, as in the phrase 'God's economy of salvation'"
I have no need for the term. I'm only interested in the rational evaluation of evidence for the purpose of gaining knowledge and understanding. I'm am not interested in art, only logic and what is. I do not accept any arbitrary, artificially imposed restictions regarding what is proper, nor do I accept authority, tradition, or democracy as logical operations.
"As to 'new versions' of the Creed--they are forbidden by the Third Ecumenical Council. Modification to the Creed is the most salient reason for the schism of the Latin church."
OK.
"At least the adjective 'eternal' applied to the begetting of the Son is true, unlike the second procession of the Holy Spirit, but there is no authority to put it into the Creed.
The word "true" can only apply if the logic is sound. As I pointed out, such a claim is illogical. One can believe whatever is true, that does not make it so.
"Nonetheless, there is no new Creed."
LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?
"LOL! Whose right, you, or the Romans?"
I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, S. Even the Latins now say that the Creed without the filioque is "normative".
On the one hand the truth of brute facts is independent of logic. On the other, logic does not dictate an equation between philosophical causality and physical (or temporal) causality, only your refusal to accept the Church's understanding is at issue here, not any matter of sound deduction.
Besides, for all your denials, proposing Arius' error of seating the begetting of the Son within time, you suffer from one of the worst cases I've ever witnessed of the malady that makes people think theology is a synthetic science like mathematics, rather than a positive science like chemistry.
If you ever get around to reading the Acta of Nicaea, you might follow with Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Divine Names, and a good history of the Palamite controversy.
I am only being quarrelsome because you erroneously expounded the meaning of the Creed based on your 'logic', in such a way as to reach Arian conclusions: time being created, to insist that the begetting of the Son is within time implies 'there was when the Son was not', the very formula for which Arius was condemned as a heretic.