Re: Premise,"If the Father is eternally the Father, then he eternally needs a Son." Father-Son language is analogical. It does not demonstrate eternal ontological necessity, though it is based on historical reality and miraculous biological-spiritual truth of the God-man. It may very well be that the Nicene theologians overstepped the humble and god-fearing requirement to not add to divine revelation by adding human speculation to the mystery of the three persons of the Godhead (Deut.29:29; Prov.30:6). We know from the beginning of John's gospel that the eternal divine logos became flesh, and we know that Messiah Yeshua is historically and regaly the son of God. Do we have clear and unambiguous Scriptural testimony that the Father-Son analogy speaks further of an eternal ontological-theological reality, rather than speculative hubris? (As an aside, I also find the ancient theological arguments about the personification of Wisdom from Prov.8 inappropriate/misapplied to the question of eternal generation, and so unconvincing). This is my biggest issue with the Nicene Creed. Does your work or that of others that you can recommend help with the faithful detailed & critical exegetical-theological reasoning that needs to be done to be convincing beyond mere tradition?
Gavin, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if he is eternal, then he is eternally the Son of God. Otherwise, check out my book called Jesus the Eternal Son!
As a point: simply because something is Biblical does not, and never has, made it true. Any form of evil promoted in the Bible cannot be true on its face- like slavery, or homophobia or misogyny- etc. As many are fond of saying- is it Christ like? Would Jesus recognize it as true and life giving, given the differences?
Fantastic commentary. As one who grew up in and continues to live in a “no creed but Christ” world - this encourages me to continue to a bit of an outliar.
Excellent as always. I learned something every time I read one of your posts. Thanks so much.
Re: Premise,"If the Father is eternally the Father, then he eternally needs a Son." Father-Son language is analogical. It does not demonstrate eternal ontological necessity, though it is based on historical reality and miraculous biological-spiritual truth of the God-man. It may very well be that the Nicene theologians overstepped the humble and god-fearing requirement to not add to divine revelation by adding human speculation to the mystery of the three persons of the Godhead (Deut.29:29; Prov.30:6). We know from the beginning of John's gospel that the eternal divine logos became flesh, and we know that Messiah Yeshua is historically and regaly the son of God. Do we have clear and unambiguous Scriptural testimony that the Father-Son analogy speaks further of an eternal ontological-theological reality, rather than speculative hubris? (As an aside, I also find the ancient theological arguments about the personification of Wisdom from Prov.8 inappropriate/misapplied to the question of eternal generation, and so unconvincing). This is my biggest issue with the Nicene Creed. Does your work or that of others that you can recommend help with the faithful detailed & critical exegetical-theological reasoning that needs to be done to be convincing beyond mere tradition?
Gavin, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if he is eternal, then he is eternally the Son of God. Otherwise, check out my book called Jesus the Eternal Son!
As a point: simply because something is Biblical does not, and never has, made it true. Any form of evil promoted in the Bible cannot be true on its face- like slavery, or homophobia or misogyny- etc. As many are fond of saying- is it Christ like? Would Jesus recognize it as true and life giving, given the differences?
Fantastic commentary. As one who grew up in and continues to live in a “no creed but Christ” world - this encourages me to continue to a bit of an outliar.
Thank you for addressing these 3 parts of the Nicene Creed. It was very helpful.