Post #11 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - The Nicene Creed's Meaning Of The Son Being "God of God"

Introduction:

    In our last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #10 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "Begotten of the Father before all worlds"I had summarized the statements in the Nicene Creed that help shed light on the confession of the Son being "the only-begotten". Note below:

1. His expressed identity. 

"the only-begotten Son of God",  

2. His eternal generation.

"begotten of the Father before all worlds" 

    In today's post we want to study what is meant by the Creed's statement of the Son as "God of God". In the last post I had a summary heading for that phrase...

3. His equality and unity with the Father. 

    "God of God," 

    To say the Son is "God of God" is to say He is equal in all perfections and being with the Father within the Trinity. Additionally, to say the Son is "God of God" is to affirm that He and the Father are "One" in being. One God. For interested readers, I'll draw out three senses that the noun "God" is used in the Nicene Creed, and what further nuances the phrase "God of God" is capturing to describe the Son as "the only begotten of the Father" in the endnotes following this post.1 

    His equality with the Father is due to them both having complete unity of nature or Divine essence. This idea of the Father and the Son being referred to as "God" is spoken of in the Bible. Note below.

1. Psalm 45:6-7 "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows." Within the eternal filiation or begetting of the Son by the Father, the Father speaks to the Son in this way. We know Psalm 45:6-7 is giving us a close-up look of the Father and the Son by what we read in Hebrews 1:8-9.

2. Hebrews 1:8-9 "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. 9 'You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions.” The eternal Son is addressed as "God" by the Father who is also "God". Yet Scripture expresses time and again that we're not dealing with two deities, but one. For example, take what Jesus says in John 10:30.

3. John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." Not one in purpose, as the Jehovah Witnesses are fond to say. Rather, this is "One" in being. The unity of the Father and the Son, with the Son being "God of God", co-equal and in union with the Father, is the emphasis. We see further elaboration by the incarnate Son of God on this in John 5:26.

4. John 5:26 "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." Only God has "life in and of Himself", or what theologians call "Divine Aseity". Aseity, from the Latin "a se" (from oneself) speaks of the self-existence and self-sufficiency of God. When God revealed His personal Divine name to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as "I am who I am", Divine aseity or self-sufficiency was in view. The Father's bestowal of aseity to the Son, an eternal act, independent and prior to time, is what the term "God of God" attempts to capture. We can see this in another New Testament text - John 1:18.

5. John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Without getting into the textual-critical technicalities, the NASB translation here represents a good textual history for the reading "only-begotten God". When I read the phrase in the Nicene Creed "God of God". It is this verse which comes to my mind.  

    We could cite other cross-references, yet we have enough Scripture here to show that the Nicene Creed's "God of God" is a Biblical summary of the unity and equality of being the Son has with the Father. 

Athanasius, the lead defender of Christ's deity at the original Nicene Council of 325, helps us unpack this phrase "God of God" that we have in the 381 Nicene Creed.

    Shortly after the Nicene Council in 325 A.D, the church father Athanasius wrote a theological treatise that functions as part commentary, part history of all that went on at the Nicene Council. He comments on the wording of the first Creed of Nicaea's article on the Son, which is worded as follows:

"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God)."

    I'm so thankful we have that initial creed, since it tells us plainly what the 381 Nicene Creed means by its comparatively abbreviated treatment of the Son in its article. Compare:

"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God"

    Athanasius comments on this part of the Creed of Nicaea of 325 (which aids us in discerning "God of God" in the Nicene Creed of 381) in his book "de decretis" section 20. I'll bold the relevant section to our post:

"but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things." 2

    If Athanasius had been still alive in 381, I'm almost certain he would had said a hearty "amen" to the 381 Creed's phrase "God of God". Remember, Athanasius was there in the thick of the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea in 325 as it combatted the Arian heresy's denial of the deity and equality of the Son with the Father. 

    The phrase "God of God" served to summarize the orthodox commitment to the unity and equality of the Son to the Father. This phrase "God of God", quite literally from its original Greek "God out from within God" echoes Jesus' famous "I in Him, He in me" statements about He and the Father's equality and unity in John 14:9b-11,

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves."

Closing thoughts:

    What is meant by the Son being "God of God"? This phrase confesses the co-equality of deity with the Father, as well their unity of deity as One God. The Divine nature is never divided, diminished, nor somehow changed between the Father and the Son. When we get to later posts on the Nicene Creed's section on the Holy Spirit, we will find its language expresses this same dual emphasis of equality/unity that the Holy Spirit shares with the Father and the Son. 

    What's the take away here? When I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ, I am praying to God. When I pray to the Father, I am praying to God. Two Persons, One God. By extension, I can say the same of the Holy Spirit, hence "Three Persons, One God". As I pray, in addressing the Father or the Son, I automatically include the other Divine Person, since the Father and Son together are One in essence. To know the Son of God is infinitely able to help me in every day life, uphold my salvation, and sustain all of existence gives great comfort to my fears. Jesus Christ as "God of God" enables me to know the Father. As Jesus Himself states in John 14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” 

Endnotes:

1. When we look at the noun "God" in the Nicene Creed, we must become familiar with the different ways this word is used in Trinitarian theology to help us understand the Creed's statement of the Son being "God of God".

A. "God" speaks of the whole Trinity.

    In the opening line of the Creed, the term "God" is referring to what will follow, namely a confession about each member of the Trinity. The noun "God" expresses the One, undivided essence shared by all three. The Father, like each of the three persons, bears the Divine nature as a member of the Trinity. The phrase used to describe the Son as "God of God" is used similarly. 

    So, sometimes the term "God" can refer to how the totality of the Divine essence, in a qualitative sense, defines each member of the Godhead. Together, all three Persons are One God, quantitatively, and as members of the Trinity, each Person is qualitatively truly God, bearing all the perfections that define what it means to be God.

B. "God" speaks to how one member of the Godhead relates to another member of the Godhead.

    When I use the term "Godhead", I'm referring to the Divine nature itself. When we talk of the term "God", it also can refer not only to each member of the Godhead, but also how the Father relates to the Son, the Son relates to the Father, and how the Holy Spirit relates to the Father and the Son, and they to Him. We see this use in the Creed by the description of the Son as "very God of very God". The phrase "very God of very God" is expressing what I noted earlier, a "qualitative" description of how each Person is by nature God in their own right. 

    The act of the Father eternally generating the Son, with the Son an eternal recipient of the Divine essence and His identity as the Son, is captured in the phrase we're focusing upon in this post - "God of God". This is a "quantitative" use of the term "God", meaning there is only one Divine essence shared between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

C. "God" refers particularly to the Person of the Father. 

    Sometimes the noun "God" in the Creed refers to the Person of the Father in particular. We see this usage in the Creed's statement about the Son as "the only begotten Son of God". It is not saying the Son is a lesser deity. Rather, the term "God" as used here refers to the Father as whom we look to when beginning to look at the revelation of the Trinity, God as a personal, infinite being, and He as the fount of the eternal relations between Him and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The "Godness of God" is conveyed without origin in and by the Person of the Father. 

2. CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius) Section 20

Post #2 Principles For Miraculous Healing - The place of miracles in a world made by God.

Introduction:

    In the last post here Growing Christian Resources: Post #1 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Introduction , I began this new series by noting the need to understand miraculous healing from principles we can glean from Jesus' miraculous healing ministry. 

    In one respect, the purpose and manner of His healing ministry is almost unique when we compare other periods of miraculous activity in the Bible. In another respect, there are principles we can glean that can help us in this present era of history. It is important we first do what I call “clearing the ground” of misconceptions against miracles. We will understand four related ideas as we deal with the often-time resistance to miracles so as to unseat skeptical arguments we’ve heard over time.

A. Miracles attest to God's existence.

B. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching          and identity.

C. Miracles must be adequately defined.

D. An argument for miracles.

    Let's then consider the place of miracles in a world made by God. 

A. Miracles attest to God’s existence. 

     Theologian Vern Poythress’ on page 18 of his book “The Miracles of Jesus” draws a connection between the reality of miracles and God’s existence:

“But it is also important to address the question of whether the miracles really happened. Miracles confront us with the question of what kind of world we live in. Does the nature of the world allow for miracles, or is the world closed to them? Is the world just a self-sufficient mechanism that allows no deviation from its regularities? Questions about the world quickly lead to questions about God.” 

Exodus 15:11 reminds us: “Who is like You among the gods, O Lord? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?”  

    Miracles are important because they attest to God’s existence. 

B. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity.

  The Bible assumes the existence of miracles, and demonstrates such, because of it being God’s revelation. Jesus’ preaching and teaching ministry included miracles to confirm His identity (as God, as Messiah). John 5:36 

“But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.”  

    Even Jesus’ healing of the leper and the paralytic that we will eventually see in Luke 5:12-16 certifies Jesus’ fulfillment of predictive prophecy from the Old Testament (see Isaiah 35:6-2; Isaiah 61:1-2a). Miracles are important because they attest o God’s existence. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity. Thirdly….

C. Miracles must be adequately defined. 

    Sometimes the reason why people object to miracles in the Gospels or the Bible is due to lack of a working definition. We can see once again the definition of a miracle we gave in the last post: A miracle is an infrequently occurring act by God in a spiritually significant setting that confirms His messenger and message. 

    Are miracles possible? For the last three hundred years our Western Culture has operated on the assumption that miracles, in principle, are impossible and cannot be identified. 18th century Scottish skeptic David Hume had popularized this definition about miracles being violations of the laws of nature. We can summarize his argument as follows: 

1. First, miracles are violations of physical laws.

2. Second, physical laws cannot be violated. 

3. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

     Hume mistakenly taught that physical laws “prescribe” what happens in our world. Scientific laws do not “prescribe” how our world is to be, but rather “describe” our physical world apart from the intervention of some kind of agent. 

    The biggest weakness of Hume's reasoning is that it commits the dreaded fallacy of "vicious circular reasoning". What that means is that Hume has already baked-in the conclusion to his premises before his conclusion. In other words, Hume assumes a definition about miracles that presupposes they're violating nature's laws. That same assumption he then assigns to the natural laws themselves. Hence, miraculous events are ruled out in the two premises prior to the conclusion, leading the conclusion to repeat what Hume has already assumed!

     Author C.S Lewis notes: 

"In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her own resources, she could never produce them." 

    Jesus notes in John 10:38 “but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

Lewis gives an illustration that can counteract Hume's faulty thinking. Imagine a dresser drawer with six pennies placed in it on a Monday. Then on Tuesday, we would place six additional pennies in the same drawers. When we would open the drawer on Wednesday, we ought to expect to find twelve pennies, since the laws of mathematics describes 6 plus 6 equals twelve. Lewis then describes a person coming into the room and taking some pennies between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. 

    If we open the drawer on Wednesday, expecting to find twelve cents, and instead find a different amount, what are we to conclude? Have the laws of mathematics been "violated". No. Instead, an agent has intervened, changing the expected resulted. Miracles are important because they attest to God’s existence. Miracles affirmed Jesus’ preaching and identity. Miracles must be adequately defined. Fourthly, when we talk about the place of miracles in a world created by God, it helps to have an argument for them.

D. An argument for miracles.

#1. If miracles do not exist, God does not exist. (Note: Miracles are non-naturally caused events, based off our earlier definition.)

#2. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

#3. The universe began to exist.

#4. Thus, the universe has a cause.

#5. The universe’s cause would be non-natural.

#6. The universe’s cause, being non-natural, in principle, is miraculous.

#7. Therefore, God exists. 

    Out of all the premises in this argument, premise #5 is most pivotal. Since the universe began to exist, any cause prior to it could not be physical, finite, nor non-personal. Why? The universe by definition is all physical, material, space-time reality. The cause of the universe could not be a material cause. Also, the cause of the universe would have to be a personal agent, since there was a decision needed to begin the universe, and only a person possesses volition. Also, the cause of the universe would need to be eternal, which would mean this intelligent agent would exist by necessity of His own nature apart from the universe.  

    Contemporary multi-verse theory, which postulates some kind of "world-universe generating mechanism" does not do away with this observation, since in multiverse theory, the mechanism driving the so-called multiverse cannot be itself eternal. Even if the multi-verse were scientifically proven, it would still have to deal with the second-law of thermodynamics, which states that physical reality, over time, is running out of available, usable energy, leading to the conclusion that such a system had to have had a beginning. 

    As we have argued then, if a natural, physical reality like our own had a beginning, then reason would tell us that the cause would possess opposite properties or characteristics. The universe is a non-personal, material, physical space-time reality. The cause of the universe would need be Personal, immaterial, non-physical, non-spatial, timeless, independent Being - a.k.a God. This is why I argue that in principle, the universe's beginning was miraculous. God's creation of the universe would lead us to expect at least the higher probability of miracles taking place within the very universe He created. 

Closing thoughts 

    The above argument at least shows the place of miracles in our world, an important first step as we approach Jesus’ miraculous healings. With that ground clearing done, and hopefully demonstrating how to deal with skepticism about miracles (especially in the Bible), we will look next time at an important principle about miraculous healing from Jesus' ministry: Pray by the will of God. 

Post #1 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Introduction

Introduction:

    We will be continuing on with our series I've devoted the last couple of months to on "1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed." What I wanted to do today is begin a short new series as I continue working on the Nicene Creed series.

    I am currently preaching a series of messages in our ongoing Sunday morning study in Luke's Gospel. Within that overall series, we have arrived at Luke 5:12-26. I felt it necessary to glean principles from Jesus' healings of a leper and a paralyzed man that may aid in navigating the interesting and somewhat contentious topic of miraculous healing. 

     I wanted to begin today's post with some facts related to miraculous healings in the Bible. One author (Michael Aubrey, “Miracles of the Bible”, Logos Bible Software) has referenced over 60 places in the Bible where healing of physical diseases occur. Aubrey also notes some 14 different places where people were raised from the dead. 

    If we take his findings and add them to the total exorcisms Jesus and the apostles performed (over one dozen), we have nearly 90 places in Scripture devoted to healing miracles. I count 19 of the 66 books that contain such records. 

    One time, years ago, I heard a lecturer note that if we take all of history recorded in the Bible from Adam until the Apostles, miracles like these would occur on average once every five years. The Bible records miracles, and certifies God's revelation of Himself, His message, and messengers through them. Nevertheless, Miracles by occurrence are rare, exceptional, and are meant to raise people’s awareness of God at work (see Luke 7:16). 

What is a miracle?

    If I were to offer a definition of a miracle, it would be this: 

A miracle is an infrequently occurring act by God in a spiritually significant setting that confirms His messenger and message. 

    This post, and the next several, will aim to give us a Biblical perspective on how to practically and doctrinally approach miraculous healing, based on Jesus’ ministry. I plan to interact with skeptical arguments against miracles on the one hand, while dealing with the theology of miracles touted by those who call themselves "continuationists", representing a broad spectrum from conservative Pentecostals to the worldwide Charismatic movement to the extremes of the New Apostolic Reformation and Prosperity movements. 

    My goal is to give us some pastoral guidance in thinking about miracles as we approach Jesus’ healing ministry. I'll close today with an outline of what the next few posts will cover. 

1. Place of miracles in a world made by 

    God. 

2. Pray by the will of God for healing. 

    Luke 5:12-13

3. Patience by the Word of God while 

    waiting for healing. Luke 5:14-16

4. Presence and power of God needed 

    for healing. Luke 5:17

5. Priority of forgiveness by God over 

    healing. Luke 5:18-20

6. Purposes of God alongside healing.  

    Luke 5:21-26

Post #10 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "Begotten of the Father before all worlds"

Introduction:

    The last two posts in this series  handled the proper translation of the term "monogenes" or "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. I devoted time to that one word, since it figures so prominently in the Creed's confession of the deity of the Son. 

    I will not review the arguments I made for showing why the term "begotten" is the best rendering of the underlying Greek term in the creed - "monogenes". The doctrine to which this idea of "begotten" points is the doctrine of the Son's Eternal Generation. Interested readers who want to review may review the last two posts here Growing Christian Resources: Post #8 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P1 Arguments favorable to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son) and here Growing Christian Resources: Post #9 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P2 Why the doctrine of eternal generation holds despite opposing arguments to it).

    What we want to deal with in this post is the Nicene Creed's phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

How the Creed explains the Son as "the only begotten"

    It may help us to lay out the phrases of the Creed that serve to expound the main phrase in this section on the deity of the Son, "only-begotten".

1. His expressed identity. 

"the only-begotten Son of God",  

2. His eternal generation.

"begotten of the Father before all worlds" (our focus today)

3. His equality of position with 

    the Father.

"God of God," 

4. His effulgent glory

"Light of Light," 

5. His essence

"very God of very God;" 

6. He as eternally uncreated

"begotten, not made," 

7. His equality of nature with the 

    Father.

"being of one substance with the Father," 

8. His eternal power with the Father

"by whom all things were made." 

What is meant by "begotten by the Father before all worlds".

    So why does the Nicene Creed go to the trouble to express the begetting of the Son as "begotten by the Father before all worlds"? As we labored in the previous two posts, the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation is in view. 

    Eternal generation tells us that in the Trinity, the Father has always eternally communicated the Divine essence and the specific identity of "son-ness" to the Son. Hilary of Poiteirs (310-367 b.c.) expounds this point in his book "On the Trinity", Book 3, chapter 1, section 3:

"He therefore, the Unbegotten, before time was begot a Son from Himself; not from any pre-existent matter, for all things are through the Son; not from nothing, for the Son is from the Father's self; not by way of childbirth, for in God there is neither change nor void; not as a piece of Himself cut or torn off or stretched out.....Incomprehensibly, ineffably, before time or worlds, He begot the Only-begotten from His own unbegotten substance, bestowing through love and power His whole Divinity upon that Birth."1

    As Hilary noted, The Father's eternal generating of the Son isn't a creative act as would be a human father begetting a child. Eternal generation is outside time, independent of time, before time, and thus had no beginning. This interrelating between the Father and the Son isn't a willful act. Creation is a willful act of all three Persons of the Trinity - with the Father decreeing it, the Son designing it, and the Holy Spirit delivering the final touches to complete it. Eternal generation of the Son by the Father originates eternally from within the eternal relation of the Father and the Son as Trinitarian Persons, sharing one, undivided nature.

    The doctrine of eternal generation teaches that without the Son there is no Father; and without the Father there is no Son. The Father's filiating or begetting of the Son has occurred eternally from within the Divine nature shared by both the Father and the Son. What may help us to explain the Nicene Creed's meaning here is by appealing to its predecessor, the Creed of Nicaea of 325 A.D. 2

      As the Council of Nicaea convened originally in 325, they crafted that original Creed, which in its section on the deity of the Son read as follows:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.  Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made."

    The 325 A.D. Creed of Nicaea  is similar to the later 381 Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which we are studying in this post series.

    At the end of the 325 Nicene Creed, a section that condemns the teaching of Arius is included. That section, called an "anathema", helps clarify the later 381 Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "begotten of the Father before all worlds".

"But as for those who say, "There was when He was not", and, "before being born He was not", and "that He came into existence out of nothing", or who assert that "the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance", or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathematizes." 

    Both versions of the Creed are wanting us to be certain that when we confess the Son to be "begotten of the Father before all worlds", that it is not talking about a creative event. Rather, this is an act between the Father and the Son, within the Godhead, that has went on for all eternity, without beginning. 

    One more thing about this phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds". The nineteenth century Church historian Phillip Schaff published his study of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed of 381. As for the Greek text of this phrase, understanding the underlying Greek grammar can shed further light on what the Creed is trying to communicate. 

    I'll walk us through, phrase by phrase, the Greek text, along with an English translation, and then some explanation of what is happening in the grammar. Hopefully this will help us to slow down enough to soak in what the Creed means by "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

Walking through the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds". 

1. First Phrase. 

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον ἸΗΣΟΥΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ, 

"And in One Lord JESUS CHRIST"

    The word translated "and" (Καὶ) is a conjunction that connects two portions of the Nicene Creed. The first part is the opening statement about the Father as "Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things visible and invisible". What follows after the conjunction (the word "and") gives an overview of the Son's equality with Father.

2. Second phrase.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, 

"The Son of God, the begotten one"

    The phrase translated "the begotten one" (τὸν μονογενῆ = ton monogenay) is what grammarians call an "appositional phrase", meaning the author(s) are explicitly bringing out the main feature that distinguishes the Son of God (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ = ton hooweeon too theoo). He is not just any Son. He isn't merely a unique Son. He is eternally generated by the Father. It is this manner of the Son's relation with the Father that makes him distinct from the Father, with whom otherwise He is equal in all respects. 

3. Third phrase.

τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα 

"The One who from-within the Father is begotten"

    The definite article "the one who" (τὸν = ton) and the participle it modifies, "begotten" (γεννηθέντα = gennaythenta), are one unit of meaning "the one having been begotten". For interested readers, I'll put the grammatical details of this word translated "begotten" in endnotes of the end of today's post.3 

    As noted already, there is no God Father unless there is a Begotten God the Son. Jesus Himself taught this John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." Now let's get to the final phrase of our overall focus in this post today of "Begotten of the Father before all worlds".

4. Fourth phrase.

πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων

"before all ages (i.e. worlds)

    The Greek noun τῶν αἰώνων (tone aionione) is translatable as either "worlds" or "ages". This is a Greek figure of speech referring to activity occurring before "time" or "history". In eternity, the Son was eternally generated from the Father. There was no creation of the Son, in other words. 

Final application.

    As we close out today, the main take-away of the Nicene Creed's phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is to show the eternality of the Person of the Son. This section of the Creed is followed by eight other statements that amplify and clarify the overall doctrine of the Son's eternal generation from the Father. Establishing the Son's eternal pre-existence combatted the heresy of Arianism, which denied the Son's true deity, making him no more than a created being. In the next several posts we will explore the remaining statements that shed further light on the only-begotten Son of God in the Nicene Creed.  

Endnotes:

1. To read Hilary's chapter in his "On the Trinity", readers may access the link here CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book III (Hilary of Poitiers)

1. The original Creed of Nicaea of 325 was drafted to combat the dreaded Arian Heresy. Arius taught that the Son of God was the highest created being of the Father. Arius was so subtle in his heresy that He even used the phrase "only-begotten" as evidence of the Son being created. For him, just as earthly fathers beget sons, it must be the case that the Father's begetting of the Son means "there was a time when the Son was not" - a favorite phrase of Arius. 

2. A participle in Greek is a "verbal adjective", meaning it is a descriptive verbal unit that tells us something about the Son - namely He is being begotten. Furthermore, the participle is in the "passive voice", meaning were told of what is happening to the Son, namely He being begotten. As a final note on this participle, it is in the "aorist", meaning it is portraying the whole act of the Son being begotten. Unless the participle is tied to a particular verb, there usually isn't any connection to time. 

    The article and its participle have between them the prepositional phrase that tells us whence the eternal generation of the Son flows - "from within the Father". The preposition "ek" (ἐκ) that is translated in most English translations of the Creed as "from" has the additional nuance in the Greek of "from within". What this means is that the Son is so intimately united with the Father that His begetting relation is "from within" the Father.