You went from an 'ole hippy'
lookin dude to a pretty handsome dude? (No I don't want a date!) Whats up?
Just goin' back in time, Bob, just goin' back in time.
Eventually, I'll get back to the old codger that I presently am.
You went from an 'ole hippy'
lookin dude to a pretty handsome dude? (No I don't want a date!) Whats up?
Sure. Go ahead and ask!Paidion-
am i allowed to ask what year that picture was taken?
No, I don't. Here are the points with which I disagree with the Arians. These are points found in the letter of Arius himself, which I quoted.Lastly, do you consider yourself an Arian, Paidion?
The Arians are regularly "blamed" for starting the doctrine by some of the more conservative apologists (in rebuttal to Jehovah's Witnesses).You wrote:Rick, I’d now like to show that it weren’t the Arians who originated the idea of the begetting (or generation) of the Son before all ages. This truth was taught from the earliest times of Christianity. Please note that the begetting of the Son before all ages is an expression common to the [early Creeds you listed]
That's a pretty big shift, isn't it?Continuing, you wrote:What follows is the original creed set forth at Nicea, A.D. 325. It was altered later. Even later forms retained the statement that the Son of God was begotten as an act of God. It was only much later that the phrase was changed to “eternally begotten”.
THE NICENE CREED
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages....
Oddly enough; here the Arian camp takes what seems to be a more conservative angle in their view of the Bible. It's not exactly Sola Scriptura but has that same anti-traditional Protestant ring to it. What was their protest? "Y'all's high falootin' theology and all them big words you use has everyone mixed up!"....THE “DATED” CREED 359 A.D. wrote:But the term “essence” has been taken up by the fathers rather unwisely, and gives offense because it is not understood by the people. It is also not contained in the scriptures. For these reasons, we have decided to do away with it, and that no use at all shall be made of it for the future in connection with God, because the divine scriptures nowhere use it of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as the holy scriptures say and teach.
I see your reasoning. It wouldn't go against "In the beginning was the Word"...as far as that goes.Thanks for your reply where you wrote:Here are the points with which I disagree with the Arians. These are points found in the letter of Arius himself, which I quoted.
1. Before he [the Son of God] was begotten, he did not exist.
There never was a time before the Son of God was begotten. For He was begotten exactly at the beginning of time. So it is correct to say that He has always existed.
Outside of not going with (the orthodox) "eternally begotten" you're basically kosher. (I have a theory that God had many sons: in fact about 70 of them, but that's beyond where our discussion is at)....2. He is from what is not (or he was made out of nothing).
He was begotten or generated by the Father, and emerged out of the Father [John 16:28]. He was therefore of the same essence as the Father, and was therefore divine. This cannot be said of anyone else other than the Father Himself.
The Greek could read "the presentation of his essence" but I don't want to go into the christology of what that or this verse might imply right now.3. He is not derived from any essence.
He is derived from the essence of the Father Himself! He is "the exact image of [the Father's] essence." (Heb 1:3)
From what I know about the early centuries your views are very much like second century Christians such as Justin who you cited. Their views may have gone back some distance into the first century but I'm not in the position to say their christological views were identical to the Apostles' and/or the original Christians.Lastly, you wrote:So, I'm not an Arian. I'm not a Trinitarian. I'm not a Modalist.
I believe I hold the same view as Christians in the first and second centuries. To illustrate the generation of the Son, Justin Martyr used the figure of a fire being started from a larger fire. The smaller fire is of the same essence as the larger fire, and the larger fire is in no way diminished by lighting the smaller one from it. However, Justin also stated that no one can really explain it. "Who shall declare His generation?"