Bernard Muller

I am not a specialist in Trinity, but at the council of Nicaea, one main argument was the nature of the Son. Even Arianus was not contesting the pre-existence, but that the Son had been begotten by the Father, at the beginning of times. That 100% what shows in the NT, that is Heb1:5,5:5; 1Jn4:9; Jn1:14,18,3:16,18; Acts13:13

Philo of Alexandria (a Jew, not a Christian!) started the ball rolling with his firstborn Son of God/WORD

"For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest Son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)

"And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

In the NT, the Son is also the firstborn (from God):

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

As far as I know, Nicaea made the Father, Son and Holy Spririt existing from before the beginning of times, but within one godhead (one is three, three is one!), making Arianus a heretic. Then if Father & Son existed forever before, with one not begotten by the other, what about the relationship father and son? And all the evidence to the contrary from the NT?
I am glad I am not an apologist.
Best regards, Bernard

Jackalope

No, the father, son, holy ghost bit was the Council of Constantinople. The council of Nicea was about the nature of Christ. For some reason, people mix those two up all the time.

From the Council Summary Page:

Bernard Muller

Ya Jack, I checked your links.
So now, from Nicea, we have, "the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father."
"begotten, not made": What would be the meaning of begotten here? Obviously my dictionary is wrong: it says produced, generated.
Best regards, Bernard

CJD

I think the historic creedal orthodox answer would be as follows:

According to this creed, the Christ is called the "only-begotten," which means the only one born of God the Father. "Begotten" as a word simply means "born" or "generated."

The Son of God is born from the Father "before all ages"; that is, before creation, before the commencement of time. Time has its beginning in creation. God exists before time, in an eternally timeless existence without beginning or end.

Eternity as a word does not mean "endless time." It means the condition of no time at all — no past or future, just a constant present. For God there is no past or future. For God, all is now.

In the eternal "now" of God, before the creation of the world, God the Father gave birth to his only-begotten Son in what can only be termed an eternal, timeless, always presently-existing generation. This means that although the Son is "begotten of the Father" and comes forth from the Father, his coming forth is eternal. Thus, there never was a "time" when there was no Son of God. This is specifically what the heretic Arius taught. It is the doctrine formally condemned by the first ecumenical council (Nicaea).

Although born of the Father and having his origin in Him, the only-begotten Son always existed, or rather more accurately always "exists" as uncreated, eternal and divine, & co.

Regards,

CJD