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?
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'