Well expressed, TK!
RND wrote:God "created" the Son?
ADESTE FIDELES (Ancient Latin Hymn. Now a Xmas carol)
Verse 2 in translation:
God of God,
Light of Light begotten,
Lo, He abhors not the Virgin's womb;
Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN NOT CREATED;
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord.
Even the original Nicene Creed indicated that Christ was begotten prior to His birth.
"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, only begotten, i.e., of the nature of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and assumed man's nature, suffered and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, (and) shall come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But the holy and apostolic church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when he was not, and that he was made from things not existing, or from another person or being, saying that the Son of God is mutable, or changeable."
This was in accordance with the teaching of the church from the beginning. Justin Martyr explained the begetting of the Son in his
Dialogue with Trypho:
“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the
Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a
certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the
Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again
an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He
calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son
of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers
to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of
will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some
word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word
[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also
happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled
[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it
likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was
kindled..."
Even the early Trinitarians of the fourth century believed Christ had been begotten before all ages. In reaction to this, the Arians, in upholding the early teaching concerning the begetting of the Son, went too far. Their two chief errors seem to be that (1) the Son was begotten out of nothing (which seems the same as His having been created) and (2 ) there was a time at which the Son did not exist. Yet, even in his letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, Arius refers to Christ as "fully God".
In reaction the Arians, the Trinitarians changed the concept of Christ's begetting from a single act to "an eternal begetting", a process, comparing it to sunbeams which are always "proceeding" from the Sun.
The truth, of course, is that (1) the Son was NOT begotten out of nothing, but had His origin in the Father who begat Him from Himself, yet not becoming at all less for having done so, as Justin Martyr affirmed, and (2 ), there was NOT a time at which the Son did not exist, for He was begotten at the beginning of time, and time didn't exist before that since there was no "before".
As one wise man put it, "The Father was causally but not temporally prior to the Son."
Hmmmm... we've come a long way from "Calvism and Universalism". But that's okay. That's now natural conversation goes. You start out talking about one thing, and it leads to something else, and then something else again.
