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.