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.