Posted on 07/22/2010 9:04:57 PM PDT by Salvation
Thank you for your honesty.
fortheDeclaration:
The Father in terms of “relationship” as in the eternal order of the Trinity [Father], the Father is viewed as the Source of Trinity, but that does not say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “not equal”. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in Nature and Divinity but the Son and Holy Spirit are distinct and thus “not called Father”
So in the Latin version of the Creed, it expresses first the consubstantial communion of Father and Son and states that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from both.
Christ as the “Word” and “Son” relate to the same Divine Person, so your making distinctions there is problematic.
Your statement:
“The Sonship of Christ is a function of the Plan, which has a hierarchal structure in the Trinity”
Ok, again, some “redflags” here “Functional Trinitarianism” is similar to Modalism which has as [Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Encylopedia notes, pp.677-678] its basic error, denying that the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit are the source of real distinctions among the Three Divine Persons. Modalism in general, understands the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be roles, functions or modes adopted by by the unpersonal Godhead for the purposes of the economy of salvation.
One can see in Modalism, the notion that the Godhead can’t be known as God only appears in 3 modes for the benefit of humanity. So in this context, one can see in your statement Christ (as we know him) in eternity was The Word, not the Son, which then suggest Christ before he became Incarnate was and is unkowable to us even after Christ was incarnate and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary and revealed God to us. Thus, while the Holy Trinity is always an eternal Mystery, Christ via the Incarnation revealed the Holy Trinity to us and thus allows us to get a small glimpse into what is an eternal mystery.
My friendly suggestion is for you to perhaps reevaluate your Trinitarian Theology and get away from the group you are affiliated with. Obviously, I would first suggest you become Catholic or next Eastern Orthodox. IF that is to big an adjustment, I would suggest you go to one of the Confessional Protestant Groups who still hold to the Truths of the Creed.
Regards
Thanks for that post!
Good Post!
No one said they weren't equal.
That distinction did not occur in eternity, it occured in time.
If there is an 'unbegotten God' He would be superior to the 'begotten God'.
So in the Latin version of the Creed, it expresses first the consubstantial communion of Father and Son and states that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from both.
The sending of the Holy Spirit occured in TIME.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit proceeded in eternity from both?
Christ as the “Word” and “Son” relate to the same Divine Person, so your making distinctions there is problematic.
No, the problem is ignoring what the Bible says.
There was no 'Son' in eternity, He became the Son in time.
Before He was begotten in time, the Word was the member of the Trinty, who became the Son.
And the Word did not come from anyone.
The Nicene Creed has the Son coming from the Father in eternity
Your statement: “The Sonship of Christ is a function of the Plan, which has a hierarchal structure in the Trinity'
Ok, again, some “redflags” here “Functional Trinitarianism” is similar to Modalism which has as [Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Encylopedia notes, pp.677-678] its basic error, denying that the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit are the source of real distinctions among the Three Divine Persons. Modalism in general, understands the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be roles, functions or modes adopted by by the unpersonal Godhead for the purposes of the economy of salvation.
The 'red flags' come from your inability to read simple English.
I didn't say the Trinity was 'functional', I stated there was a hierachial structure to the Trinity, The Father sent the Son, the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost.
There are three distinct members in the Godhead, and none came from the other in eternity, which is what the Nicene Creed states.
One can see in Modalism, the notion that the Godhead can’t be known as God only appears in 3 modes for the benefit of humanity. So in this context, one can see in your statement Christ (as we know him) in eternity was The Word, not the Son, which then suggest Christ before he became Incarnate was and is unkowable to us even after Christ was incarnate and born of the Blessed Virgin Mary and revealed God to us. Thus, while the Holy Trinity is always an eternal Mystery, Christ via the Incarnation revealed the Holy Trinity to us and thus allows us to get a small glimpse into what is an eternal mystery.
Again, Christ, who is the Word, became the Son in TIME, not eternity.
So, you are simply attempting to raise up a strawman by attempting to make it appear that I am denying the Trinity.
If there was in eternity, a moment when the other members of the Trinity didn't exist, but came from the 'unbegotten God' they would be inferior to that God.
All three members of the Trinity always existed together, and none were begotten in eternity.
My friendly suggestion is for you to perhaps reevaluate your Trinitarian Theology and get away from the group you are affiliated with. Obviously, I would first suggest you become Catholic or next Eastern Orthodox. IF that is to big an adjustment, I would suggest you go to one of the Confessional Protestant Groups who still hold to the Truths of the Creed.
I would suggest you learn to read English and see what your Creed is actually teaches, that it is making Christ a 'lesser God' than the the Father by making Him begotten in eternity.
Putting up phony strawman arguments won't change that fact.
How does anyone know how each member of the Trinity related to the other?
And why would there have to be a 'familial relationship' between the three members of the Trinity?
That 'relationship' exists because of the Plan that created for mankind, not for because God needed it.
The concept a 'begotten Son' in eternity makes the Son inferior to the 'unbegotten' God, since the Son is receiving His essence from Him.
We know the name of the 2nd member of the Trinity who became the Son, and the Bible states it was the Word, not the Son.
The Word is never said to have been begotten, the Son was begotten.
And it is said that the Son was begotten in a DAY (Ps.2) not eternity.
The three members of the Trinity each partake of the same essence, and have always done so, none were begotten by the other in eternity in order to have that essence.
That is not an 'analogy' of the 'Word' revealing the Father.
That is using language that would have the second member of the Trinity being 'born' or 'produced' by the Father.
Which would make that one 'begotten' inferior to the one who begot Him as God.
The begetting refers to the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, not His existance in eternity as God.
fortheDeclaration:
No strawmen here, you just are one of these typical Protestants who sets “himself” up as the Authority of what is correct Doctrine.
The Trinity and the distinctions existed in Eternity, if you don’t believe that, it is you that has the non-orthodox view of the Trinity. You seem to falling for this modern evangelical Protestant heresy that rejects “eternal sonship”, something that John MacArthur pushes.
Their is no orthodox Church Father who spoke of the Trinity the way you speak it. The Son is eternally from the Father, and that is the clear distinction you are missing.
You say “what the Bible says.” Typical Protestant nonsense. The Bible does not say anything. The question is what does Sacred Scripture teach and thus how is it interpreted, which is really what you are saying. When you say “The Bible says” what you are really saying is “I believe the Bible says this”, which is just saying “I will interpret the Bible” which is problem with Protestantism. Every Man is in essence their own “Pope” or “Church Council”
I am aware of the what the Creed says. It is you that have the problem and I can read English quite well. You did use the word “Functional” in an earlier post, which is a redflag for “modalism”, which is resurfacing bigtime in modern Protestantism, particularly in many of the Pentecostal sects.
The problem with your Trinitarian views is that you are limiting Christ as Son as merly an external relationship of God, i.e. The Word became Son in time. Orthodox Trinitrian Doctrine, as expressed in the Creed describes the inner Life of the Triune God.
So as Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine has historically put it, the procession of the Word from the Father [called generation] and the procession of the Holy Spirit {cf. John 15:26] from the Father are indeed “Eternal” and immanent”
If we follow your teaching, then you are destroying the notion of God as Father for if Christ was not eternally Son as well [you seem to say he was Word and became Son], then the Father was not always a “Father” which is similar to what what Arius was saying, although not exact, but still heretical.
In circa 318 AD, Arius was a priest in Alexandria, Egypt gave a Sermon and gave his interpretation of John 1 (Logos, ie. Word) as to what it meant. The Bishop of Alexandria heard what Arius stated and asked him to come in and discuss his positions.
Arius stated: God has Not always been Father, there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: Later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.
Now, your view says “The Word” existed from eternity but not the “Son”, which again, is similar to Arianism as it denied that God the Father was always in eternity “Father”, which destroys the interrelationship of the Holy Trinity which is a perfect communion of Love. To Love suggest one has to go outside of one’s self. So when St. John states “God is Love” (cf 1 John 4:8), he is describing God’s very Nature. The Father eternally loves the Son and the Son eternally loves the Father and thus in time, becomes Incarnate. The Bond of Love between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit.
So yes, orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, which rejects Arianism believes that there never was a time when Christ as Son was not Son.
Finally, it is clear that I am a Catholic. So in full disclosure, which Protestant group, among the many out there, do you belong to?
I didn't set myself up as an authority, I just explained what the Nicene Creed is actually saying, that the Son is a 'begotten God' which means, He came from the Father, and that is Arianism.
The Trinity and the distinctions existed in Eternity, if you don’t believe that, it is you that has the non-orthodox view of the Trinity. You seem to falling for this modern evangelical Protestant heresy that rejects “eternal sonship”, something that John MacArthur pushes.
Where does it say in the Bible that this Trinitarian distinction existed in eternity?
It doesn't.
Their is no orthodox Church Father who spoke of the Trinity the way you speak it. The Son is eternally from the Father, and that is the clear distinction you are missing.
No, the Son is not 'eternally FROM the Father'.
In the beginning was the Word, not the Son.
And the Word didn't come from the Father.
You say “what the Bible says.” Typical Protestant nonsense. The Bible does not say anything. The question is what does Sacred Scripture teach and thus how is it interpreted, which is really what you are saying. When you say “The Bible says” what you are really saying is “I believe the Bible says this”, which is just saying “I will interpret the Bible” which is problem with Protestantism. Every Man is in essence their own “Pope” or “Church Council”
I am reading what the Creed actual says, and it is teaching Arianism, that the Son eternally came from the Father and didn't ALWAYS exist with the Father.
I am aware of the what the Creed says. It is you that have the problem and I can read English quite well. You did use the word “Functional” in an earlier post, which is a redflag for “modalism”, which is resurfacing bigtime in modern Protestantism, particularly in many of the Pentecostal sects.
I used the term 'Hierarchical', not functional, to describe the roles that each member of the Trinity agreed to undertake is related to the names they have.
You only jumped to a false conclusion since you can't deal with the fact that your Creed is teaching a heresy.
The problem with your Trinitarian views is that you are limiting Christ as Son as merly an external relationship of God, i.e. The Word became Son in time. Orthodox Trinitrian Doctrine, as expressed in the Creed describes the inner Life of the Triune God.
The Word became the Son in time-exactly!
The Son didn't come from the Father in eternity, He was begotten in TIME.
So as Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine has historically put it, the procession of the Word from the Father [called generation] and the procession of the Holy Spirit {cf. John 15:26] from the Father are indeed “Eternal” and immanent”
The procession occurred in time, not in eternity.
And the begetting occurred in time, not in eternity.
So, whatever You think occurred in eternity is simply neo-Plationic nonsense.
The Plan was formulated in eternity, but nothing actually HAPPENED until time began.
If we follow your teaching, then you are destroying the notion of God as Father for if Christ was not eternally Son as well [you seem to say he was Word and became Son], then the Father was not always a “Father” which is similar to what what Arius was saying, although not exact, but still heretical.
The 'Father' wasn't always the Father.
The term 'Father' relates to the Plan which happens in time.
Arius stated that Christ was a 'lesser' God because He came from the Father, just as the Creed teaches.
In circa 318 AD, Arius was a priest in Alexandria, Egypt gave a Sermon and gave his interpretation of John 1 (Logos, ie. Word) as to what it meant. The Bishop of Alexandria heard what Arius stated and asked him to come in and discuss his positions. Arius stated: God has Not always been Father, there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: Later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.
Your Creed is saying that there was moment when the God (the unbegotten God) was alone.
And then the Son was begotten from the Unbegotten God.
Now, your view says “The Word” existed from eternity but not the “Son”, which again, is similar to Arianism as it denied that God the Father was always in eternity “Father”, which destroys the interrelationship of the Holy Trinity which is a perfect communion of Love. To Love suggest one has to go outside of one’s self. So when St. John states “God is Love” (cf 1 John 4:8), he is describing God’s very Nature. The Father eternally loves the Son and the Son eternally loves the Father and thus in time, becomes Incarnate. The Bond of Love between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit.
Now, why would the 'Son' have to be begotten as the Son to share intimate Love with the other two members of the Trinity?
It is a nonsense assertion to try to make the love of God in the Trinity depend on the names they have for one another!
So yes, orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, which rejects Arianism believes that there never was a time when Christ as Son was not Son.
Actually, you are teaching Arianism, by saying there was a moment when the Son didn't exist until the 'Father' begot Him.
You have adopted the central tenet of Arianism.
Finally, it is clear that I am a Catholic. So in full disclosure, which Protestant group, among the many out there, do you belong to?
I am a Christian. I attend a Baptist church.
The Original Creed doesn't say eternally begotten Son of God.
THE NICENE CREED (more properly called the Nicene-Constantinople Creed), came to us in its final form from the great Council of Constantinople in 381.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/creeds.htm
You wrote:
“I didn’t set myself up as an authority, I just explained what the Nicene Creed is actually saying, that the Son is a ‘begotten God’ which means, He came from the Father, and that is Arianism.”
No, the Creed is not saying the Son is a “begotten God”, as if to say there is more than One God. Again, you don’t understand what Arius was stating. His view was that the Son of God did not exist in all eternity and that there was a time when the Son did not exist at all. In other words, everyone understood the “Word or Logos” (cf. John 1:1) to refer to Christ, without the distinctions you seem to want to make between Word and Son, etc.
Arius stated that there was a time when the Father was not a Father and thus the Son did not exist and came into existence at some point in time.
You wrote:
“Where does it say in the Bible that this Trinitarian distinction existed in eternity?”
Where does it say that it does Not? That is the problem with your sola scriptura, and all Protestantism, as the Bible itself is the Church’s book and it was the Church, reflecting on which books where appropriate for reading the Liturgy and which were essential in developing Doctrine, etc, that made it into the NT Canon, which was not formally and finally defined until the late 4th century at various Councils [Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD] culminating with Pope Innocent’s Letter to Bishops in Gaul [modern France] in 405 AD.
You wrote:
“No, the Son is not ‘eternally FROM the Father’.
In the beginning was the Word, not the Son.
And the Word didn’t come from the Father”
My response: Do actually believe this? and is this what your Baptist Church professes. My goodness!!, I have always understood that Protestants different from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on the issues of Justification, i.e. how God Saves us, etc, and Authority, you all argue Sola Scriptura [which is not Scriptural and evidence indicates that it does not work as Protestantism at the Doctrinal level keeps dividing into more and more and more sects], but at least at one time, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants had common understandig of the Trinity, which in fact is the most important Doctrine as it relates to who God is.
So the Word and the Son are different are do they relate to the same “Person” of the Trinity and that “Person” is Christ. If the Word did not come from the Father, then where did the Word Come From? Further, if the “Son” is not eternally of the Father, then you are saying the Son is purely Temporal.
So again, the Nicene Creed in using the language “eternally begotten of the Father, God From God, LIght from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father” is explicitly rejecting those who denied the eternity of the Son or held Him to be of a different nature from the Father. And it seems that your previous statement listed above is doing just that.
You Wrote:
I am reading what the Creed actual says, and it is teaching Arianism, that the Son eternally came from the Father and didn’t ALWAYS exist with the Father.
My response: Before saying the Creed is teaching Arianism, it is “Explicitly Rejecting it”. Please, go read up exactly what Arius taught from some other sources if what I wrote is not communicating it to you.
The Creed, with respect to Christ, in addition to eternally begotten of the Father [note the word Eternal, meaning Christ always existed] it reads “God From God, Light From Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father [in Greek, homoousio]. So, what the Nicene Creed is saying is that God is One and that there is only One Godhead, with 3 Persons, but that God as One Divine Nature [i.e., Father, SOn and Holy Spirit are not different or similar natures, but the same Divine Nature].
You Wrote:
The Word became the Son in time-exactly! The Son didn’t come from the Father in eternity, He was begotten in TIME.
No, I did not write that, I was quoting what you wrote earlier. The Word became Flesh and entered into human history, but Christ in his Divine Nature was always with the Father in eternity and thus always existed.
You wrote:
The ‘Father’ wasn’t always the Father.
The term ‘Father’ relates to the Plan which happens in time.
Your Creed is saying that there was moment when the God (the unbegotten God) was alone.
And then the Son was begotten from the Unbegotten God.
My response: See above, the Creed does not say what you think it says as this is rehashing the same points I clarified above. The Creed does not say Christ at some point did not exist. It says the opposite, there never was a time when he did not exist. God is One and the Father, SOn and Holy Spirit are all of the Same Divine Nature and thus exist outside of time, i.e. Eternally.
In closing, if you feel the need to have the last word, go for it. I am done. However, I suggest you actually go back and read the Church Fathers and read about the Council of Nicea (325 AD) as it is clear to me that you are quite confused. Again, I am done with you on this point [i..e Debating the Nicene Creed], but your Baptist Church is really off base with its Trinitarian views, which also has Christological implications that are unorthodox.
And by stating an 'eternal begetting' you are calling the Father, the 'unbegotten God' and the source of the 'begotten God'
I am using 'Arianism' in it's broad form.
I know that Arians attempt to make a distiction between the essence of the Father and the Son.
The roots of the Arian controversy are to be found partly in the conradictory elements of the christology of the great Origen...he taught...thesubordination of the Son, as the second, or secondary God beneath the Fahter, and thus furnished a starting point for the Arian heresy (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol.3, p.619)
So, I am looking at the Creed supporing Arianism in its broad form, making the Son eternally subordiinate to the Father.
The fact is that by preaching an 'eternal begetting' of the Son you are preaching a form of subordinatism, which makes the Son less then the Father.
You wrote: “Where does it say in the Bible that this Trinitarian distinction existed in eternity?” Where does it say that it does Not? That is the problem with your sola scriptura, and all Protestantism, as the Bible itself is the Church’s book and it was the Church, reflecting on which books where appropriate for reading the Liturgy and which were essential in developing Doctrine, etc, that made it into the NT Canon, which was not formally and finally defined until the late 4th century at various Councils [Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD] culminating with Pope Innocent’s Letter to Bishops in Gaul [modern France] in 405 AD.
In other words, you have no scriptural support for that philosphical speculation.
And what does the forming of the Canon have to do with anything?
Nothing in the NT Canon we have today supports that nonsense.
And the NT church always knew what the NT Canon was.
The Councils only acknowledged what the true church always had accepted.
But thanks for the red herring.
You wrote: “No, the Son is not ‘eternally FROM the Father’. In the beginning was the Word, not the Son. And the Word didn’t come from the Father” My response: Do actually believe this? and is this what your Baptist Church professes. My goodness!!,
Wow, imagine believing what the Scriptures actually teach!
I can understand why a Catholic would be amazed at such a thing!
I have always understood that Protestants different from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on the issues of Justification, i.e. how God Saves us, etc, and Authority, you all argue Sola Scriptura [which is not Scriptural and evidence indicates that it does not work as Protestantism at the Doctrinal level keeps dividing into more and more and more sects], but at least at one time, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants had common understandig of the Trinity, which in fact is the most important Doctrine as it relates to who God is.
The understanding of the Trinity is based on what the Scripture teaches, not Creeds.
And the Roman Church is constantly divided over issues within it's own ranks.
So the Word and the Son are different are do they relate to the same “Person” of the Trinity and that “Person” is Christ. If the Word did not come from the Father, then where did the Word Come From? Further, if the “Son” is not eternally of the Father, then you are saying the Son is purely Temporal.
If the Word didn't come from the Father where did He come from?
The Word always existed,(Jn.1:1) just as did the other two members of the Trinity!
That you would even ask that question shows how you have absorbed the Arian heresy (in it's broad form)
No member of the Godhead had to come from anywhere in eternity, they always existed.
So again, the Nicene Creed in using the language “eternally begotten of the Father, God From God, LIght from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father” is explicitly rejecting those who denied the eternity of the Son or held Him to be of a different nature from the Father. And it seems that your previous statement listed above is doing just that.
The original Nicene Creed never mentions the word 'eternally begotten', that came later and was an unnecessary and heretical addition.
You Wrote: I am reading what the Creed actual says, and it is teaching Arianism, that the Son eternally came from the Father and didn’t ALWAYS exist with the Father. My response: Before saying the Creed is teaching Arianism, it is “Explicitly Rejecting it”. Please, go read up exactly what Arius taught from some other sources if what I wrote is not communicating it to you.
It teaches 'Arianism' in that it is teaching that one person of the Trinity came from another, making that person less then the original person.
See my above quote on Origen, the intellectual father of Arianism.
It is Arianism in it's broad form.
It taught there was 'an unbegotten The Creed, with respect to Christ, in addition to eternally begotten of the Father [note the word Eternal, meaning Christ always existed] it reads “God From God, Light From Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father [in Greek, homoousio]. So, what the Nicene Creed is saying is that God is One and that there is only One Godhead, with 3 Persons, but that God as One Divine Nature [i.e., Father, SOn and Holy Spirit are not different or similar natures, but the same Divine Nature].
The Trinity always existed.
The Son was begotten in Time, not eternity.
You Wrote: The Word became the Son in time-exactly! The Son didn’t come from the Father in eternity, He was begotten in TIME. No, I did not write that, I was quoting what you wrote earlier The Word became Flesh and entered into human history, but Christ in his Divine Nature was always with the Father in eternity and thus always existed.
The Word became flesh.
Note, that you didn't say the Son became flesh.
No one is denying that the 2nd member of the Trinity always existed, He just didn't exist as the Son, He was the Word.
He became the Son in time.
You wrote: The ‘Father’ wasn’t always the Father. The term ‘Father’ relates to the Plan which happens in time. Your Creed is saying that there was moment when the God (the unbegotten God) was alone. And then the Son was begotten from the Unbegotten God. My response: See above, the Creed does not say what you think it says as this is rehashing the same points I clarified above. The Creed does not say Christ at some point did not exist. It says the opposite, there never was a time when he did not exist. God is One and the Father, SOn and Holy Spirit are all of the Same Divine Nature and thus exist outside of time, i.e. Eternally.
We are not discussing the issue of the divine essence, what is being discussed is the relationship in the Trinity as Father and Son and when did that relationship begin
The revised form of the Creed makes that Father-Son relationship begotten in eternity, not time, where the Bible clearly places its beginning.
A Father-Son relationship would place one member of the Trinity in authority over another in eternity.
That relationship occured in time, where the Son willingly obeyed the Father and humbled Himself (Phil.2).
In closing, if you feel the need to have the last word, go for it. I am done. However, I suggest you actually go back and read the Church Fathers and read about the Council of Nicea (325 AD) as it is clear to me that you are quite confused. Again, I am done with you on this point [i..e Debating the Nicene Creed], but your Baptist Church is really off base with its Trinitarian views, which also has Christological implications that are unorthodox.
Actually, it is clear that you are quite confused on what your revised Creed states as opposed to the original one, which didn't mention an 'eternally begotten Son'.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
Note, no mention of any 'eternal begetting'.
fortheDeclaration:
No redherring, the Catholic Church defined the NT and you can stick your head in the sand all you want.
The reason the Creed was refined further was because all the Creed of Nicea said with regard to the Holy Spirit is “We believe in the Holy Spirit”. Given the the Creed at Nicea dealt specifically with Christ, who is The Word, the Son of God, Son of Man, etc, [It is all the Same Person], the issue of the Holy Spirit was not in question.
In the 360’s to 370’s, The issue of the Holy Spirit came up and that is where the Creed added the language “The Lord Give of Life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and Son He is Worshipped and Glorified.. He has Spoken through the Prophets.
No, the Father eternally generates the Son, but the language in the Creed “God from God, Light from Light” says that the Father and Son are of One Divine Substance, the same Divine Substance. So the Father and Son are equal in Divinity.
And I do not hold to “Sola Scriptura” that is your baby and with the thousands of competing Protestant sects, that in and of itself shows it is a unworkable and false doctrine, one that was never believed by anyone before Fr. Martin Luther decided to rebel against Rome.
As for Subordinationism, the Creed actually rejects it because it actually denied the existence of the Second Person of the Trinity from all eternity, claiming that the Second Person came forth from the Father and was divine, but only at the time of Creation. So, correctly understood, Subordinationism argued that somewhere before Creation of the world and creatures, Christ came into being and was Divine like the Father [The Arians saw him as sort of a demi-God, capable of virture and vice], but lesser in Divinity.
With respect to the Trinity, the understanding of it is rooted in Sacred Scripture, as well as the Liturgy and authentic orthodox Apostolic Tradition as expressed in the Liturgy-i.e. what the Church prayed and the writings of the orthodox Church Fathers who defended orthodox Catholicism from every heresy that poped up, starting with Docetism, Gnosticism, Subordinationism, Modalism, Adoptionism, Arianism, etc, etc.
Now, again the reason eternally begotten was added it was to clarify that the Holy Spirit proceeds and is not begotten since “begotten” is a theological term to express the intimate relationship between the Father and Son.
The Creed is the Nicene-Constantinopile Creed, that is correct as I stated earlier, the language eternally begotten of the Father with respect to the Son was added to clarify the distinction that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, etc.
Given both Councils are authoritative, I take them as the orthodox summary of the Catholic Faith of the early Church. If you reject the Creed, you belong to a Church that is among the thousands of other Protestant sects that do the same. What else is new?
This Creed clearly teaches that the Son is not less than the Father. It is still one of the Creeds of the Catholic Church although since the Vatican II Council, it is no longer used in the Liturgy, only the Nicene and Apostles.
Athanasian Creed:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
It is clear you are one of these fringe Protesant Groups that denies the eternal sonship of Christ. Fair enough, but no orthodox Christian believed what you believed and for that manner, neither did Luther or Calvin.
You know that lying is a sin?
Don't forget to confess it at Confession!
Now, what we were discussing was the Revised Nicene Creed, which states that the Son was 'eternally begotten'.
The Creed that you state is the one still being used.
The RCC may claim it teaches the Son is not less than the Father, but in it's Nicene Creed it clearly is making the Son a lesser God, since the Son comes from the Father.
The Athanasian avoids linking 'eternal' with the 'begetting'.
Why is it that I am not surprised that you didn't mean what you said?
We were discussing the Nicene Creed, which clearly does make the Son less then the Father since (in its revised form) claims that in eternity, the Son is begotten from the Father.
As for Calvin's view on the Nicene Creed,
In the Reformed Churches, except the Episcopal, the Nicene Creed is little used. Calvin, who had a very high opinion of the Apostles' Creed, depreciates the Nicene Creed, as a 'carmen cantillando magis aptum, quam confessionis formula' (De Reform. Eccles.) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.iii.html .
No, the Catholic Church didn't 'define' the NT, it was established long before any Councils met on it.
And it is a 'red herring's since the question was, was there any scriptural proof for what the Nicene Creed was saying about an 'eternal begetting' of the Son.
The reason the Creed was refined further was because all the Creed of Nicea said with regard to the Holy Spirit is “We believe in the Holy Spirit”. Given the the Creed at Nicea dealt specifically with Christ, who is The Word, the Son of God, Son of Man, etc, [It is all the Same Person], the issue of the Holy Spirit was not in question.
And I could care less why the Creed was 'refined'.
They just put in more nonsense about the Holy Spirit 'preceding' from both as if that occurred in eternity also.
In the 360’s to 370’s, The issue of the Holy Spirit came up and that is where the Creed added the language “The Lord Give of Life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and Son He is Worshipped and Glorified.. He has Spoken through the Prophets.
Again, who cares?
The fact is that the original Nicene Creed didn't say anything about an 'eternal begetting' of the Son
No, the Father eternally generates the Son, but the language in the Creed “God from God, Light from Light” says that the Father and Son are of One Divine Substance, the same Divine Substance. So the Father and Son are equal in Divinity.
If the Son comes from the Father (in eternity)he is not eternal, the Father preceded Him.
So, the rest of your words lose their meaning.
And I do not hold to “Sola Scriptura” that is your baby and with the thousands of competing Protestant sects, that in and of itself shows it is a unworkable and false doctrine, one that was never believed by anyone before Fr. Martin Luther decided to rebel against Rome.
More red herring.
It was the later Nicene Creed with it's 'filoque' clause that led to the first major split in the Church, between the East and West.
So, save the revisionist history.
As for Subordinationism, the Creed actually rejects it because it actually denied the existence of the Second Person of the Trinity from all eternity, claiming that the Second Person came forth from the Father and was divine, but only at the time of Creation. So, correctly understood, Subordinationism argued that somewhere before Creation of the world and creatures, Christ came into being and was Divine like the Father [The Arians saw him as sort of a demi-God, capable of virture and vice], but lesser in Divinity.
The Creed is teaching subordianationism, since the Son is coming from the Father.
It doesn't reject it all.
With respect to the Trinity, the understanding of it is rooted in Sacred Scripture, as well as the Liturgy and authentic orthodox Apostolic Tradition as expressed in the Liturgy-i.e. what the Church prayed and the writings of the orthodox Church Fathers who defended orthodox Catholicism from every heresy that poped up, starting with Docetism, Gnosticism, Subordinationism, Modalism, Adoptionism, Arianism, etc, etc.
The 'eternal begetting' isn't in the Scripture, as you have admitted.
Now, again the reason eternally begotten was added it was to clarify that the Holy Spirit proceeds and is not begotten since “begotten” is a theological term to express the intimate relationship between the Father and Son.
Begotten means to be 'born, produced' as this article clearly states.
So, don't try to hide behind changing word meanings.
The Creed is the Nicene-Constantinopile Creed, that is correct as I stated earlier, the language eternally begotten of the Father with respect to the Son was added to clarify the distinction that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, etc.
Which means is nothing more then empty rhetoric, since neither the 'begetting' or the 'proceeding' occured in eternity, they both occured in time.
Given both Councils are authoritative, I take them as the orthodox summary of the Catholic Faith of the early Church. If you reject the Creed, you belong to a Church that is among the thousands of other Protestant sects that do the same. What else is new?
Nothing else is new, the same old lies just keep coming out of your 'church'
fortheDeclaration:
I think I said I would not longer debate the Nicene Creed, which if you go back and read it. That is what I said. You are correct that Calvin and Presbyterians tend to use the Apostles Creed, which of course is the Baptismal Creed of the Church of Rome as the writings of ST. Hippolytus of Rome in circa 220 AD indicate.
Now, with respect to me lying, In my last post, I posted the “Athanasian Creed” to further clarify what is believed by the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the period of the Church Fathers and Councils of the Church, which both Historical Apostolic Churches hold to, i.e. the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthdoox Church.
If you Protestants, i.e Split P’s, want to continue to move away from historic orthodox Apostolic Faith, go ahead, as everytime I come here, I see that Protestantism is nothing more than theological relvatism in that every individual Protestant takes the idea of the priesthood of each believer and elevates it to the reality that “I will determine what is Correct Doctrine” from “my reading of the Bible” and in doing so, Protestant Church’s can’t in the end hold to correct Doctrine because each generation produces more and more splits based on, guess what “someone else came up with an interpretation” and what do you know, a new Protestant group is born.
Now, do some individual Catholics, even some Priests maybe and theologians dissent from Defined Catholic Teaching, of course, and usually in the area of sexual morality [i.e. Traditional Marriage, birth control] and the related culture of life issues [abortion and euthansia] and women’s ordination, etc, but those that do so are defacto schismatics in that they are elevating their own theological views in contrast to Defined Dogma and Doctrine.
Protestantism, on the other hand, who can say what is Defined Doctrine? Nobody, because every man and women are in reality their own interpreter of Sacred Scripture and thus Doctrine really comes down to what I think and thus, when the Church teaches something that I disagree with, that person leaves and seeks “like minded” individuals whose interpretations are consistent with “Me” and you have a new group.
Again, I take the Nicene-Constantinopile Creed as the orthodox Statement of Apostolic Tradition as reflected in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, i.e what was passed on to the Church via the Apostles to the 2nd century Fathers of the CHurch [St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaus of Lyon], to the 3rd century Fathers [i.e. St. Cyprian of Carthage, to the 4th century Fathers [St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome , St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, etc] and defined by the 4 Great Councils [Nicea 325 AD, Constaninopile 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD] and the faith that was believed and expressed via the way the Church prayed at Sacred Liturgy.
And again, you continue to make that claim about the Son. Who in the heck are you?? and what makes you think you know Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Doctrine and that your view is infallible.
So I say it does not say what you say as the Nicene Creed “Never says” Christ is less than the Father. It says the exact oppositie, Christ is “GOD from GOD” “Light fom Light” True God from True God.
And for historical accuracy, I think Confessional Lutherans still use the Nicene Creed. Anglicans I know, as you note do as well. The only other confessional Protesant group is the Methodist and I don’t know which one they use, they use either the Apostles are Nicene.
So lets be honest, if you are a Baptist, that is just another way of saying “every man/woman for themself” as among the core Bapstist principles is the “priesthood of all believers”, which in practice means I will not accept any Authority other than may own and assuming the local Pastor Jim Bob is preaching, what I think is correct, his role as Pastor over my “local little congregation”
So lets be clear now, you are one of these modern evangelicals, following John MacArthur and William Martin, who is now deceased, who started rejecting the eternal Sonship of Christ back in the 1980’s, although apparently MacArthur now says he was wrong in doing so, are so he says. Most of the people who pushed this view are radical dispensationalist/rapture supporters, which is a doctrine that was first pushed in American Protestant circles in the 19th century, again, nobody ever believed the “rapture doctrine” as espoused by Fundamentalist American Protestants.
In closing, yes there are some good faithful Protestants there, and the ones that hold to historic Christian Doctrine, are ones that I have much support for. But each generation, more and more Protestant Groups sort of “go over the cuckoos nest” with some of these novel ideas and the rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of the Father is another one of these ideas that has come about in the last 30 years in Protestant Circles.
Again, I will stick with the Church Fathers, Councils and Creeds of the early Church.
The Nicene Creed was the subject of the debate.
Now, with respect to me lying, In my last post, I posted the “Athanasian Creed” to further clarify what is believed by the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the period of the Church Fathers and Councils of the Church, which both Historical Apostolic Churches hold to, i.e. the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthdoox Church.
My comment on your 'lying' was over you posting after stating that you were done.
The 'Athanasian Creed' has nothing to do with what we were discussing, the fact that the Nicene Creed contained a heresy.
If you Protestants, i.e Split P’s, want to continue to move away from historic orthodox Apostolic Faith, go ahead, as everytime I come here, I see that Protestantism is nothing more than theological relvatism in that every individual Protestant takes the idea of the priesthood of each believer and elevates it to the reality that “I will determine what is Correct Doctrine” from “my reading of the Bible” and in doing so, Protestant Church’s can’t in the end hold to correct Doctrine because each generation produces more and more splits based on, guess what “someone else came up with an interpretation” and what do you know, a new Protestant group is born.
The Bible is the final authority for every believer, not the traditions of men,
making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye'(Mk.7:13)
Now, do some individual Catholics, even some Priests maybe and theologians dissent from Defined Catholic Teaching, of course, and usually in the area of sexual morality [i.e. Traditional Marriage, birth control] and the related culture of life issues [abortion and euthansia] and women’s ordination, etc, but those that do so are defacto schismatics in that they are elevating their own theological views in contrast to Defined Dogma and Doctrine.
The history of the Roman Catholic Church is a history of schisms and divisions.
Protestantism, on the other hand, who can say what is Defined Doctrine? Nobody, because every man and women are in reality their own interpreter of Sacred Scripture and thus Doctrine really comes down to what I think and thus, when the Church teaches something that I disagree with, that person leaves and seeks “like minded” individuals whose interpretations are consistent with “Me” and you have a new group.
We test everything by the scriptues, that is where our doctrines come from, not the opinions of men.
Again, I take the Nicene-Constantinopile Creed as the orthodox Statement of Apostolic Tradition as reflected in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, i.e what was passed on to the Church via the Apostles to the 2nd century Fathers of the CHurch [St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaus of Lyon], to the 3rd century Fathers [i.e. St. Cyprian of Carthage, to the 4th century Fathers [St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Jerome , St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, etc] and defined by the 4 Great Councils [Nicea 325 AD, Constaninopile 381 AD, Ephesus 431 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD] and the faith that was believed and expressed via the way the Church prayed at Sacred Liturgy. And again, you continue to make that claim about the Son. Who in the heck are you?? and what makes you think you know Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Doctrine and that your view is infallible.
We were discussing a particular creed and what it says.
The claim about the Son was what the Creed was saying about the Son, that he was begotten from the Father in eternity.
That would make the Father precede the Son, hence, superior to Him.
That is what the Creed is saying, even though it wants to deny it.
So I say it does not say what you say as the Nicene Creed “Never says” Christ is less than the Father. It says the exact oppositie, Christ is “GOD from GOD” “Light fom Light” True God from True God.
You keep avoiding the 'begetting' part.
God from God?
Are there two God's?
Can God come from God?
Open your eyes and see exactly what it is saying, that there are two God's, one unbegotten and one begotten (in eternity)
And for historical accuracy, I think Confessional Lutherans still use the Nicene Creed. Anglicans I know, as you note do as well. The only other confessional Protesant group is the Methodist and I don’t know which one they use, they use either the Apostles are Nicene.
And if they do, they are as wrong as the Roman Catholics in doing so.
So lets be honest, if you are a Baptist, that is just another way of saying “every man/woman for themself” as among the core Bapstist principles is the “priesthood of all believers”, which in practice means I will not accept any Authority other than may own and assuming the local Pastor Jim Bob is preaching, what I think is correct, his role as Pastor over my “local little congregation”
No, as a Christian, I am a believer priest and come to God directly
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light'(1Pe.2:9)
So lets be clear now, you are one of these modern evangelicals, following John MacArthur and William Martin, who is now deceased, who started rejecting the eternal Sonship of Christ back in the 1980’s, although apparently MacArthur now says he was wrong in doing so, are so he says. Most of the people who pushed this view are radical dispensationalist/rapture supporters, which is a doctrine that was first pushed in American Protestant circles in the 19th century, again, nobody ever believed the “rapture doctrine” as espoused by Fundamentalist American Protestants.
I could care less what those guys said on anything.
That is the difference between your views and mine.
I am only concerned with what the scriptures teach, not the traditions of men or their opinions.
You have admitted that the Nicene Creed has TWO Gods, GOD FROM GOD.
In closing, yes there are some good faithful Protestants there, and the ones that hold to historic Christian Doctrine, are ones that I have much support for. But each generation, more and more Protestant Groups sort of “go over the cuckoos nest” with some of these novel ideas and the rejecting Christ as the eternal Son of the Father is another one of these ideas that has come about in the last 30 years in Protestant Circles.
In closing, you had better stop putting your faith in an institution and believe in the finished work of Christ.
Again, I will stick with the Church Fathers, Councils and Creeds of the early Church.
And I will stick with the words of God, from which salvation comes from, not Fathers, Councils and Creeds which often contradict one another.
It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man (Ps.118:8)
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.