Post #4 Principles for Miraculous Healing - Patterns For Divine Healing Today, Further Remarks About Cessationism vs Continuationism In The Miraculous Gifts

 

Introduction:

      In our last message we looked at various principles related to miraculous healing from Jesus’ ministry. We defined a miracle as follows:

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

We had looked at the healing of the leper in Luke 5:12-16. We noted two principles that can aid us when praying about healing or in understanding God’s healing power related to prayer.

1. Pray by the will of God. Luke 5:12-13

2. Patience by the Word of God. Luke 5:14-16

        We learned that it is appropriate to pray according to God’s will for healing. That is, to pray “if it be your will” is not unbelief. Modern faith healing often neglects the Bible’s designations of God’s unrevealed and revealed wills. There are aspects and purposes of God’s will that are unrevealed, for which we cannot know. To pray in faith recognizes that I won’t know everything with certainty, thus it is Biblical to yield oneself to God by praying “if it be your will”. 

    The leper asked Jesus “if your are willing, you can make me clean” in Luke 5:12. Then a second principle, “patience by the Word of God” meant we exercise patience by God’s Word by obeying it and praying according to it. God’s Word is to be our guide. In today’s post we will look at the patterns of Divine healing we find in the world today.

 The patterns of God’s healing today.

     I had mentioned in the last message that I take what is called a “cessationist view” of the miraculous gifts. We find over 250 miracles in the Bible of all sorts, with roughly 90 or so involving healing of different types (spiritual maladies, psychological ailments, and physical diseases). I wanted to at least clarify where I land on this issue before we move on to the text before us in Luke 5:17-26. Below focuses upon miracles of healing.

 

        I hold to a “cessationist” view on the miraculous gifts, meaning that the manifestation of genuine miraculous giftings and offices like Apostles and Prophets ceased at the end of the Apostolic era in the first century. God certainly still heals today, mainly in answer to prayers and the working of His providence. 

    Those who would disagree are called “continuationists”, who believe to one degree or another, the route of miraculous gifting has not ceased, but continues. What do we see in the Bible pertaining to the pattern of miraculous giftings for healing? Were there periods where it stopped and then started again? Or has it always continued alongside the normal route of healing in answer to prayer?

In the Bible, we find large stretches of time where no miracles occurred, interspersed with sudden bursts of them. In the lives of the Patriarchs in Genesis, God would heal the infertility of Sarah, Rachael, and Rebekka (2,000 b.c.-1,800 b.c.), enabling them to bear forth children. Another 400 years would pass until Moses’ ministry in 1440 b.c., where only once do we see him perform a miraculous healing (Exodus 4:6-7). Another 300 year period would pass, with Gideon the Judge complaining in Judges 6:13 that it had been centuries since any miracle transpired in Israel from the days of Moses.

From Gideon’s time in 1150 b.c. or so we wait fifty or so years until God heals Hannah of her infertility for she and her husband to give birth to Samuel in 1 Samuel 2 in roughly 1100 b.c. From that point we pass by another two hundred years before we see the healing of King Jeroboam’s hand (1 Kings 13:4-6) in 930 b.c. Over a century would pass again until the ministries of Elijah and Elisha in 850 b.c. 

A century or so would pass again until the healing of King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:5-7 by the prophet Isaiah applying medicine on his wound in 750 b.c. After the prophet Isaiah, another 700 years would pass where no healing miracles through individuals took place. Answers to prayer for healing went forward, yet miraculously gifted individuals would wax and wane depending upon the need for validating God’s revelation and progressive revelation.

     It is with Jesus and the Apostles we find a huge clustering of healings. Jesus performed over 15 healing miracles in the four Gospels of His 35 or so total miracles. Then the Apostles performed roughly ten healing miracles in Acts. We see periods where God worked miracles through gifted individuals in addition to the route of prayer/providence, followed by long stretches where God chose to use the more conventional route of prayer.

     Then as the Apostolic age closed, the pattern of God using miraculously gifted people would wane and cease once again. God is God and if He would ever so choose to heal somebody by manifesting a sudden gift of healing, He could do so. 

     The Biblical pattern we just reviewed suggests miraculous healing occur in our world today through the primary route of providence and prayer, rather than through Apostles, prophets, or those gifted with such miraculous gifts. Other than Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians in 12-14 and one reference in Galatians 3:5, I find no other reference to miracles or healing gifts in any of his other letters or any of the remaining letters of the New Testament. 

    The Book of Revelation indicates that after the Rapture of the Church, in the final seven year period of history known as “The Tribulation Period”, miraculous healings, and corresponding signs will resume as one final testimony of God’s judgment. 

Closing thoughts

    We’ve observed patterns for God’s healing today. It is not unusual for God to use gifted individuals to heal in spurts of time in history, followed by longer stretches where He heals through normal Providence and answers to prayer. As I noted today and in the last post, the discussion over cessationism and continuationism ought to never cause Christians to separate from one another. It is hoped that in expressing my own understanding on these matters, readers can better understand how I approach the subject of healing. In the next post we will look at another important principle in the subject of miraculous healing: the necessity of God's power in healing, and how it is governed by various purposes He wants to achieve. 

Post #12 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - Biblical Meaning Of The Son Being "Light of Light" In The Nicene Creed

 

Introduction:

    So far in our series on the Nicene Creed, we have looked at what theologians sometime refer to "the First Article", namely the confession of the Father as "One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things visible and invisible." 

    We then began serval posts back looking at the "second article" of the Creed, the Person of the Son. The deity of the Son is affirmed in the following lines:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, 

the only begotten Son of God, 

begotten of his Father before all worlds, 

God of God, 

Light of Light, 

very God of very God, 

begotten, not made, 

being of one substance with the Father; 

by whom all things were made".1

     I've bolded the phrase "light of light" in the excerpt above, since it is what we want to cover in today's post. It is the middle phrase in the Nicene Creed's treatment of the deity of the Son. What we want to do to observe key Biblical passages that utilize this metaphor of "light" to explain what is meant by the Son being "light of light". We will look at four main headings to guide us through the Biblical witness.

1. The Son being "light of light" means His light refers to His uncreated deity.

2. The Son being "light of light" refers to He and the Father eternally relating within the Trinity.

3. The Son being "light of light" means He could perform redemptive acts as God.

4. The Son being "light of light" means the Father and the Son illuminating the New Heavens and Earth with unending, uncreated light as One God.

Biblical passages that reveal God being light.

    We begin with examples in the New Testament from each of the major Biblical authors in the New Testament letters. I begin here because it is this part of Scripture where the fullest revelation of the Trinity is given. I want to work back toward the Old Testament, since the New Testament authors draw so much of what they write from the Hebrew Scriptures. We will then loop back to statements made by Jesus Himself pertaining to He being the light of deity.

1. The Son being "light of light" means His light refers to His uncreated deity.

    We begin with the Apostle John in 1 John 1:5 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." This usage of the term "God" refers to the totality of the Godhead, the Divine nature that is found equally in all three persons of the Trinity. James, the half-brother of Jesus, wrote of the Father in James 1:17 "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." 

    Thus we are reminded that when we first talk of God as He is in His Divine essence, we cannot go far without also mentioning the Trinity, beginning with the Father. The relational source of and conveyance of the Divine nature of unapproachable light issues forth from the Father, to the Son, and then in turn the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Son being "light of light" means His light refers to His uncreated deity.

2. The Son being "light of light" refers to He and the Father eternally relating within the Trinity.

    The New Testament authors squarely declare God is light, and the First Person of the Trinity, the Father, is in His Person the totality of that Divine light that characterizes what it means to be God. The Son too, being declared by the Nicene Creed as "light of light" also possess the fullness of this light of deity. Note Paul's words in 1 Timothy 6:15-16 "that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

    This remarkable text affirms that the Son is too the light of deity by nature in the same way as the Father. Hebrews 1:3 attests further: "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Other New Testament texts that assert what the Creed is attempting to summarize the Son to be as "Light of Light" in other words conveying the same idea: Colossians 1:16: 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 1:16-17; Revelation 21:3l; and Revelation 22:5.

How the Old Testament develops the understanding of the Divine nature through the imagery of light

    What then does the Old Testament have to reveal about God being light? Psalm 104:2 gives this striking statement about Yahweh, Jehovah, with reference to the totality of deity that is the being of God: "Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak, stretching out heaven like a tent curtain." As we trace the revelation of God as light, we already get the sense of movement within the Divine essence of God. Habakkuk 3:4 "His radiance is like the sunlight; He has rays flashing from His hand, and there is the hiding of His power." 

    If we couple Habakkuk 3:4 to Hebrews 1:3, we see the Father radiating the light of Deity, and the Son being that very radiance. In the experience of the Old Testament Jewish nation, God revealed Himself as a "pillar of fire" by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21; Exodus 14:20; Nehemiah 9:12). When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush, light and fire was the expression He gave as the uncreated one sustaining the bush by not consuming it (Exodus 3:1-14).  Thus, the Son being "light of light" means His light refers to His uncreated deity, as well as 

referring to how He and the Father eternally relating within the Trinity.

3. The Son being "light of light" means He could perform redemptive acts as God.

   God as light includes His revelation as the Redeemer (Psalm 27:1; Job 29:3; Proverbs 4:18). It is this same God whose light of deity will illuminate the New Heavens and New Earth to light the way for the resurrected saints (Isaiah 2:5; 60:1-2; 60:19). The final revealed book of the Old Testament in our English Bibles, Malachi, predicts what would be the forthcoming Messiah, which Malachi ascribes as "the Sun of righteousness" (Malachi 4:2). Although the Old Testament's revelation is not as sharp, we can still resolve the conceptual imagery of God as a whole, along with Yahweh of Israel or God the Father, along with a Divine Personage having that same light, whom the New Testament reveals of course as the Son, Jesus Christ. One more point about Jesus being the "light of light" as expressed in the Nicene Creed.

4. The Son being "light of light" means the Father and the Son illuminating the New Heavens and Earth with unending, uncreated light as One God.

    Light then is associated with what it means to be God. As we return back to the Gospels, we find Jesus referring to Himself as that same light we've already explored (John 8:12; John 9:1-2). Jesus in His preincarnate state was revealed already as "The Light" who reveals the Divine glory of God to all in general revelation (John 1:9). The Apostle Peter notes how salvation involves Christ calling us out of darkness and into "His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). 

    Jesus Christ the Son is "Light of Light", equal yet distinct from the Father of heavenly lights. As He shared with the Father uncreated light in eternity and in His pre-incarnate state, the same will still hold true in eternity future for Him as the incarnate Son of God. In church history, the late third century theologian Origen writes a striking set of comments on Jesus Christ being the very light and effulgence of Deity in his work "On First Principles", Book I, Chapter 1:

"For what other light of God can be named, in which any one sees light, save an influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himself, who is called the truth? Such is the meaning of the expression, In Your light we shall see light; i.e., in Your word and wisdom which is Your Son, in Himself we shall see You the Father."2 

    The Apostle John writes in Revelation 21:23 how the Son of God will shine as "light of light" for all the redeemed to see:

"And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb."

Key points about God being light from the Scriptures

    As we have surveyed the Biblical record regarding God as light, we have explored the following takeaways about the Son of God being called "light of light" in the Nicene Creed.

1. The Son being "light of light" means His light refers to His uncreated deity.

2. The Son being "light of light" refers to He and the Father eternally relating within the Trinity.

3. The Son being "light of light" means He could perform redemptive acts as God.

4. The Son being "light of light" means the Father and the Son illuminating the New Heavens and Earth with unending, uncreated light as One God.

    Before we conclude this post, we cannot forget the Person of the Holy Spirit. Scripture attests to how He as well is "Light". We know for instance when He came on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, He lighted upon those present as flames of fire. By the Scriptures which He inspired, the Holy Spirit enlightens our eyes (Psalm 19:8); our minds (1 Corinthians 2:10-13); while shining the light that shows us the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:19). 

Endnotes:

1. There two key terms in this part of the Creed that I underlined. The first as to do with the Son being "begotten" of the Father. We've spent a great deal of time in previous posts detailing the meaning of the term "begotten". The second underlined term that we will get to in later posts is "being of one substance", a translation of the Greek noun "homoousios", which was a term wrestled over in the events leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381. The former term deals with the equality and distinctiveness of identity the Son has with the Father in the Trinity. The latter phrase "being of one substance" handles how the Son is an equal sharer, equal participate in the Divine essence with the Father, with both Divine Persons distinguished as Begetter and Begotten. 

2. CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book I (Origen)

Post #3 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Pray by the will of God when praying for healing (and a word about how I view the miraculous gifts)

Introduction:     

    In our last post we deal with the possibility of miracles in our world here Growing Christian Resources: Post #2 Principles For Miraculous Healing - The place of miracles in a world made by God.. If indeed we can demonstrate the cause of the universe being miraculous or supernatural, then we ought to expect miracles. The same God who created our universe is able to intervene in the course of affairs by His ordinary providence in history, answered prayers, and laws of nature as well. Such a God also does the same by way of extraordinary providences or "miracles". 

    In today's post I want to deal with the first principle for miraculous healing we pull from Luke 5:12-26: "Pray by the will of God when praying for healing". This of course raises a very important question: should we pray “Lord if it be your will, heal so-and-so”? 

    In the last post we saw the one extreme of skepticism, and the need to correct faulty thinking in denying the miraculous altogether. However, in exploring Jesus’ healing ministry, it is important we do “ground-clearing” on another error in our day, namely the teaching that it is always God's will to heal or that it is inappropriate to prayer "Lord, if it be your will". 

    Although some Charismatic groups, so-called 'Third-Wave" teachers, and New Apostolic Reformation authors would advocate such positions, it is recognized that not all will teach it. Nevertheless, some will even go so far to say: "it is always God’s will to heal, and if you don’t get healed, it's due to your lack of faith." 

A word about cessationism - my own personal journey on how I view the miraculous gifts.

    I think it important to grasp a little bit of the wider conversation on the miraculous gifts, and where I stand on the issue. I’m what you call “a cessationist” when it comes to the miraculous gifts. What is cessationism? John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue in their well edited work "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine", page 804, define it as follows:

"Cessationism is the view that the sign gifts (e.g., the performing of miracles, gifts of healing, speaking in tongues) and the revelatory gifts (i.e., the reception and proclamation of new revelation from God) passed away when the foundation stage of the church ended." 1

    When I first became a Christian over 40 years ago, I was in the Charismatic movement for many years. When I got trained in Bible College and Seminary, I first heard of cessationism, and then later a mediating position called "open but cautious". 

    For several years after seminary I avowed a form "continuationism" that proposes that most of the miraculous gifts still operate, albeit in a lesser form than those of the Apostolic era of the first century. I do not think this debate ought to ever break fellowship between Christians. For sure, on a practical level, especially in the realm of corporate worship or in regular Bible teaching, we must be sure we interpret experience by Scripture, rather than the reverse.  Furthermore, it seems a consistent yet charitable cessationist view handles better the Biblical data on spiritual gifts as a whole. 

    Dr. Wayne Grudem, an excellent Evangelical theologian in most respects and a continuationist theologian, defines "continuationism" in his 2nd Edition of his "Systematic Theology":

    "a continuationist would say that the miraculous gifts continue today."2

    Overtime I've enjoyed the ministries of men like Dr. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, who are able exponents of this sort of mainstream, evangelical "continuationist" teaching. Dr. Piper's presentations on his continuationist views were instrumental in my younger days when I first held to that position. I have their books and to a large degree trust their handling of Scripture, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on where they land on this subject. 

    I settled into the position I hold to today, cessationism, for a number of reasons.3 I have dear Christian friends who are Pentecostal and Charismatic, and ought not think the need to break fellowship. Nevertheless, on a practical and pastoral level, where one lands on how God works in our world when it comes to healing and miracles is important whether defending the Christian faith against skeptics or praying for those needing healing.   

What cessationism teaches

     Cessationism doesn’t deny God’s power to heal nor activity of healing. I remember for a long time resisting cessationist teaching because I thought they denied God's activity of miracle working today. Despite that caricature, I then learned that cessationists do teach God's healing power as He so chooses in answer to prayer. 4

    Dr. Tom Pennington, who pastors Countryside Baptist Church in Southlake, Texas, was for years associated with Grace Community Church, pastored by the late Dr. John MacArthur.5  Pennington offered the following definition of cessationism, and contrasted it with the overall view I mentioned earlier - "continuationism":

"So what is it that cessationists believe the Spirit has ceased.  Let’s be very clear.  We only believe He has ceased one function and that is He no longer gives believers today the miraculous spiritual gifts, gifts like speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing.

On the other hand, continuationists believe either that the miraculous gifts have continued unabated since Pentecost or other sects would say, no, they have waned through much of the church age but have now been restored."  

    Cessationism seems to best explain why not every single gift, office, and phenomena witnessed in the New Testament is evidenced today. Even among the spectrum of continuationist thought, they will allow some things to carry-on into this present era, while limiting or even claiming other aspects (such as the Apostolic office) have ceased. As John MacArthur said at the Strange Fire Conference, "ultimately, even continuationists are cessationists". 

Verifying why it is best to pray for healing according to God's will

    Let's be clear. God has always used providence and prayer in every age to work healing in accords to His will. In particular eras, God used a second route – miraculous giftings in individuals. As I study Scripture and look at church history, we see God healing whom he wills through providence and prayer, with the former route of miraculous gifts having waned (see Hebrews 2:3-4). In other words, we no longer see a continuation, but rather a cessation of miraculous gifts in and through specific individuals. 

    When I was in the charismatic movement decades ago, I recall preachers discouraging people to pray “if it be your will” as a sign of unbelief. Is this true. In Pentecostal, Charismatic, and NAR (New Apostolic Reformation or Third Wave Charismatic teaching), it is assumed that it is God’s will to heal. To pray "if it be your will to heal me God" is unbelief. Is this true? 

    Notice Luke 5:12-13 “While He was in one of the cities, behold, there was a man covered with leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and implored Him, saying, ‘Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.’ 13 And He stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ And immediately the leprosy left him.”  

    Jesus doesn’t correct the man. The leper’s request is his way of yielding himself under whatever purpose Jesus may have in mind. Why was it appropriate for the leper to say to Jesus “Lord, if you are willing”? Let’s finish out today's post by noting three points.

A. We don’t know God’s unrevealed will. 

    Here is a question: “why do some people get healed immediately and others later on?” I’ve yet to hear the Charismatic movement mention God’s unrevealed will when it comes to the question of healing. Let us be reminded of Isaiah 55:8  “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord.”  Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”  We have then God’s “revealed will” and then His “unrevealed will”. God’s will and purpose are closely related in Scripture. 

    God's will is His pleasure in bringing about whatever comes to pass (compare Psalm 115:3). Ephesians 1:11“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”  Thus, we don’t know God’s unrevealed will, which factors into why sometimes people don't get healed when we pray for them.

B. We know prayer is to follow God’s will.

    Praying according to God’s will in healing follows the pattern taught by Jesus about prayer in general. Matthew 6:9-10 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”  We have the Biblical rationale for praying “Lord, if it be your will” when praying for miraculous healing. Let’s go further. We cannot know God’s unrevealed will, we know prayer is to follow God’s will, thirdly…..

C. We don’t know the timing of God’s will. 

    God’s will has decreed when He will heal, as well as whether He has another purpose in mind besides healing. God can immediately heal, but he may also decide to heal later or in some cases heal believers (like my late father) in heaven. 

    Think of it this way. If people were healed immediately, they may not be ready or they may easily stop relying on God. Only God knows ultimate outcomes, even paths which may never come to pass (compare Isaiah 46:10). At times the building of faith and trust in God can enable the person to see God’s glory when the healing comes later. 

    On the flip-side, God can heal immediately and thus get the glory. This mystery-side of healing and God’s will shows we do not know all of God’s purposes. God is aiming to be glorified and He is always good no matter what. 

Final thought

    Contrary to many so-called faith-healers today, it is appropriate to approach the Lord with humility, admitting our ignorance as to His purpose, and pleading His mercies for healing. Our first principle we learn from Jesus about miraculous healing: pray according to the will of God. 

Endnotes:

1. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue in their well edited work "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine",Crossway Publishers, Wheaton Illinois, 2017, page 804

2. Wayne Grudem. An Introduction to Biblical Doctrtine - Systematic Theology - 2nd Edition. Zondervan Academic. Page 1272. Note 23. 

3. Why did I settle into cessationist views on the miraculous gifts? Firstly, I did so because continuationism, seems inconsistent in viewing some of the miraculous gifts as ceased (like Apostles, Prophets) and advocating that other gifts (like prophecy or tongues) as different from their Apostolic Age counterparts. 

    My second reason for holding to cessationism is because, in my view, continuationist exegesis of Scripture feels strained. I just do not see this two-tiered view of the miraculous gifts as "full strength" in the Apostolic period and "lesser strength" advocated at all in Scripture nor strenuously in church history. 

    Then lastly, Charismatic or stronger views of continuationism admit to the discontinuity of the office of Apostle and Prophet, as well as the marked differences between so-called tongues today and claims to the gift of miracles compared to what we read in the New Testament.  

4. There are times I’ve prayed for healing, or where we’ve anointed people with oil, and God saw fit to answer those prayers. My father for instance was anointed four times in his four battles with cancer. In the third instance, the cancer disappeared, whereas in the other anointings with oil, God had other purposes in view. 

    Cessationists do advocate the definite possibility of healing, what they deny though is that such miraculous gifts are operating in individuals today as they once did in the Apostolic era. 

5. Over a decade ago, Dr. Pennington spoke at Grace Community Church's annual Shepherd's Conference, which had as its theme for that year: "Strange Fire". The conference featured a full presentation of cessationist teaching, and exposed the erroneous thinking of current Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third-Wave movements.

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.