SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[Gustave]

Gregory, the gotquestions website you posted did probably a better job than I did on articulating at least part of the position I'm taking. The Christ foretold in the Old Testament would not sin or fail to fulfil anything said about Him. One of those things was sinlessness. 

If SDA's agree with the Shawn Boonstra video on the Substance of God that would default into Jesus possessing the same Substance as the Father & Holy Spirit. God the Father & God the Holy Spirit can't sin therefore Jesus couldn't either. God became Man without ceasing to be God. 

Most all of the heresies concerning Christ require the rubric that Christ decaffeinated Himself so that He became less than fully God when He took on Human Nature. I suspect this notion is the ground by which the idea that Christ 'could have sinned' sprouts up.

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I have been challenges in this respect by Gustave.  Norman Gulley (A well-known SDA theologian.)has written a multi-volumn work on Theology.  In my quotes that follow, I will be citing from:

Gulley, Norman. .  Systematic Theology, Vol III; Creation, Christ, Salvation.  2012. 871 pages.

Quoting Raoul Dederen:  "His humanity did not correspond to Adam's humanity before the Fall , nor in every respect to Adam's humanity the Fall."  then in Gulley's words:  Christ was like us in every way except for sin.  . . . in him is no sin."  Page 433

"He [Christ] had to be free from sin in His nature (not just external acts) in order to save humans from their sinful natures.. . . It is the broken relationship between God and humans that is the chasm Christ crossed, not to enter the broken relationship Himself, but to bridge the gap, to join divinity and humanity within Himself, and then in Himself and then in His life, death, and post-resurrectiion  ministry to same humans so that they might be fit to belong to a sinless society, on God's side of the chasm."

I will suggest that in the above passages Gulley may be approaching what Gustave has said.  This is probably a new idea to many.

 

 

 

He [Gulley] is approximating the Hypostatic Union - at least that's what it looks like to me. 

1 John 3,8: "For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

Correct me if I am wrong:

*  The Hypostatic Union proposes that Christ (Jesus) was both fully God and fully human.

*  The Hypostatic Union was accepted at true by both the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalcadon (451 AD).

*  You and the Roman Catholic Church would agree with the position of the Hypostatic Union.

*  You are  saying that Gully seems to you to be orthodox in accepting the Hypostatic Union. 

[JoeMo]

Using hindsight, while I firmly believe that Christ had a free will and could have sinned, even if I'm wrong, the fact is that Christ did NOT sin; therefore we have access to the Kingdom and eternal life.

Gustave made an interesting statement saying that if Jesus could sin that means God could sin.  God has the ultimate free will - He can do whatever He wants.  Because He is God, whatever He does is right.  Sin is falling short of His target.  I can't reconcile in my head how God God can have a free will, yet - by His very definition - can do no wrong.  Does that make sense?

[Gregory Matthews]

I, do not consider either myself, or the typical SDA congregational pastor to be a theologian.   In our educational background, we have not been given in-depth training in the various church councils that took place in the early years after Christ.  In the developmental days of this denomination, our founders were generally quite young and in addition were not theologians.  In actual fact, I do not consider any of them to be a trained theologian.  To some extent, this has changed today and we do have trained theologians, but these are not the typical congregational pastor.  As a personal illustration, in conversing on this subject, I have had to go to a theological dictionary in order to understand the  meaning of several of the words that Gustave has used in his posts.

So, when I got up at 3AM today, I sent an e-mail to a couple of people I know and asked them if there is a current belief among SDA clergy that. as Gustave has said, Christ (Jesus) could not have sinned.  One has quickly responded.

He began by stating what I have said, that the typical SDA clergy person is not a theologian.   Then he went on to say that he was positive that there was a strong element within the SDA denomination that Christ could not have sinned.   I am familiar with the background of his statement.  There has been in that past, and continues to this day,  some differences that exist as to some aspects of the nature kof Christ.  The SDA denomination  has not officially stated that either position is correct.  Rather, the thinking has seemed to me to be that this was not an upon which  our salvation would be decided.  Therefore, both sides have co-existed within the SDA denomination until the present day.

Perhaps, at one time I was more aware of this   than I am today.  This is probably true.  In any case, this discussion has resulted in my giving increased thought to the developmental years of the SDA Church and the various beliefs that SDA members have held.

It is certainly true that SDAs have often held the position that Christ (Jesus) in his earthly life could not have sinned.  However, it must be recognized that this belief did NOT result in a belief that God, in  Christ, could have sinned.  So, it must be said that certain of the objections raised by Gustave as to the logical consequences of a belief that Christ could have sinned, would be rejected by those SDAs. 

My friend who has responded has suggested that I    contact another person and ask him about this issue.  I will probably do so.  As I get responses, I will keep you informed.

Thanks to all for the contributions that you have made to this discussion.

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:

Correct me if I am wrong:

*  The Hypostatic Union proposes that Christ (Jesus) was both fully God and fully human.

*  The Hypostatic Union was accepted at true by both the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalcadon (451 AD).

*  You and the Roman Catholic Church would agree with the position of the Hypostatic Union.

*  You are  saying that Gully seems to you to be orthodox in accepting the Hypostatic Union. 

My understanding is that Christ was ONE Person with two Natures - the two natures were NOT BLENDED or MIXED. The Hypostatic Union was / is the way the Church described how the two natures were perfectly united in Jesus. God really did become man without ceasing to be God. 

What you posted, that was attributed to Gully, seemed to be approximating the Hypostatic Union. 

Christ was eternally God the Son - and in eternity did the will of the Father.

The Incarnation of God happens, God is manifested in the flesh.

The human nature doesn't become more than it is - nor does the Divine Nature become less than it is. Jesus was FULLY GOD & FULLY MAN. How this is possible is beyond our grasp and even likely beyond the grasp of archangels. The Hypostatic Union is simply the term used to describe two natures existing in ONE PERSON without the degradation of the Divine or the elevation of the Human. 

Jesus caught colds, had fevers, got tired and every other condition people have - Jesus was REALLY IN ALL WAYS like us apart from sin.

 

 

[From what you have said above, it appears that you, the SDA Church, I and the Roman Catholic Church agree--GM.]

 

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Using hindsight, while I firmly believe that Christ had a free will and could have sinned, even if I'm wrong, the fact is that Christ did NOT sin; therefore we have access to the Kingdom and eternal life.

Gustave made an interesting statement saying that if Jesus could sin that means God could sin.  God has the ultimate free will - He can do whatever He wants.  Because He is God, whatever He does is right.  Sin is falling short of His target.  I can't reconcile in my head how God God can have a free will, yet - by His very definition - can do no wrong.  Does that make sense?

God can do anything other than not be God - and God, according to the Bible will not do anything against His nature. Therefore, God can't sin. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Note the comment that I have inserted into the post by Gustave above.

[Gustave]

I think the confusion part of this was the repeated affirmations Mrs. White made that Jesus 'could have' sinned and subsequently lost His Salvation. Had this hypothetical situation been realized "God" would have then annihilated Christ so that it would eternally be as if Christ never existed in the 1st place. 

I have met SDA's, who after going through the Scriptures with me, conceded that Christ could not have sinned and lost His Salvation.

There have been other SDA's, however, that exhibited what appeared to be violent "cognitive dissonance" in their inability to reconcile what Mrs. White asserted with the mountain of Scriptures which assert the hypothetical situation was impossible.

I have had SDA's fully agree with the position that it would have been impossible for Christ to sin  - prior to exposing them to the multiple assertions by Mrs. White. It was after showing them Mrs. White's affirmations that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation that I observed the cognitive dissonance. 

One thing that you have convinced me of Gregory is that the Adventist Church is a "Big Tent" with a wide spectrum of accepted / tolerated beliefs. Had I known that years ago it would have saved me a significant amount of time. This actually explains much of what I've observed and documented in the General Conference Archives - different beliefs, which are contradictory, being put forth. In a Big Tent system each group essentially get's what they need to feel good about their beliefs while at the same time keeping the system itself from imploding. 

 

[JoeMo]

17 minutes ago, Gustave said:

There have been other SDA's, however, that exhibited what appeared to be violent "cognitive dissonance" in their inability to reconcile what Mrs. White asserted with the mountain of Scriptures which assert the hypothetical situation was impossible.

Although I can't blame it on EGW, I am suffering cognitive dissonance over this as we speak. Thanks Gustave - now I won't be able to sleep tonight! ?

Seriously, Gustave, you are a valuable asset to this community.  You are more than welcome to keep challenging us.  Keep questioning all the answers!

[8thdaypriest]

31 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I think the confusion part of this was the repeated affirmations Mrs. White made that Jesus 'could have' sinned and subsequently lost His Salvation. Had this hypothetical situation been realized "God" would have then annihilated Christ so that it would eternally be as if Christ never existed in the 1st place. 

I have met SDA's, who after going through the Scriptures with me, conceded that Christ could not have sinned and lost His Salvation.

There have been other SDA's, however, that exhibited what appeared to be violent "cognitive dissonance" in their inability to reconcile what Mrs. White asserted with the mountain of Scriptures which assert the hypothetical situation was impossible.

I have had SDA's fully agree with the position that it would have been impossible for Christ to sin  - prior to exposing them to the multiple assertions by Mrs. White. It was after showing them Mrs. White's affirmations that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation that I observed the cognitive dissonance. 

One thing that you have convinced me of Gregory is that the Adventist Church is a "Big Tent" with a wide spectrum of accepted / tolerated beliefs. Had I known that years ago it would have saved me a significant amount of time. This actually explains much of what I've observed and documented in the General Conference Archives - different beliefs, which are contradictory, being put forth. In a Big Tent system each group essentially get's what they need to feel good about their beliefs while at the same time keeping the system itself from imploding. 

 

I think we talked awhile back about "would not" vs "could not".  One has to do with God's all-knowledge (including the future), and the other has to do with Christ's nature (human, divine, combination, fully both). 

Because the LORD prophesies a thing concerning a human subject, does not mean that person has no choice.  Choice is not removed because the LORD has prophesied a future action.

On the other point:

I believe that Jesus Christ "emptied himself" to take the form and the nature "of a servant".   Of what did He empty himself?  The Greek word means "void" or "empty". 

Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10).  

Why would Jesus need His Father to do the works?  If He was equal in power, why not just do the works Himself?  More still, if Jesus was the same divine being/person (God), then He would have no need to be indwelt by His Father (a second being).   

Without the indwelling of His Father - the "fullness of the God" would Jesus have been able to do the works?  "The works" to include not just miracles, but also perfect conformity to the will of His Father. 

Did Jesus have the choice - to receive or reject the indwelling of His Father, or was Jesus (because of His existence as God) simply part of "God" with no separate identity or existence?  

I personally believe that Father and Son are two separate persons/beings - each with individual will.  Therefore Christ could have resisted/rejected His Father's will. 

One does not need to suffer from "violent cognitive dissonance", to believe that God (defined as "the Father") beget a second divine being out of Himself (in His exact image), and that He "sent" His begotten "Son" into this world. 

[8thdaypriest]

I'm doing well since surgery on my foot last week.  But have to wear this clunky post op shoe for a month.  I did buy a zippered rain boot to wear over it, so I can walk outside.  Can't neglect my flowers.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  I will understand what Ellen White believed on this subject.  I do not have a problem with people saying that Ellen whit was wrong in a specific doctrinal position as she was not intended to fill the role in the developing SDA denomination of a final arbitrator   of doctrine.  Some may attempt to fit her into that role.  But, that was not how she saw herself.  That was not what she claimed to be.

You have stimulated me to expand my thinking on this subject.  for that I commend you.

As JoMo essentially stated: regardless of whether or not we (I) agree with you, you are welcome here in this forum.

Open communication, as it taking place here is healthy.

[Gregory Matthews]

One of my friends  has responded to me.  I will give a partial quote below of what he said to me.   As he was not writing for publication, I will not cite his name.

 

The fundamental issue is this: If Jesus is part of the Godhead or trinity .... if He is fully God, as the basic Christian creeds state, then how is it possible for Him to sin? In other words, if one believes that He could sin, then He is demoted to some degree.

 

Another problem is that the concept that Christ could of sinned is related to or becomes the basis for a perfectionist approach to salvation.

 

Adventist theologians largely turned away from these ideas in the 1950s, although they had been popular among a number of Adventist theologians in the 1920s and 1930s when Fundamentalism had considerable influence over the Adventist faith.

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Although I can't blame it on EGW, I am suffering cognitive dissonance over this as we speak. Thanks Gustave - now I won't be able to sleep tonight! ?

Seriously, Gustave, you are a valuable asset to this community.  You are more than welcome to keep challenging us.  Keep questioning all the answers!

Don't take it out to hard on yourself. I have cognitive dissonance over some things my Camp advocates too. You're not alone. Thanks though. 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think we talked awhile back about "would not" vs "could not".  One has to do with God's all-knowledge (including the future), and the other has to do with Christ's nature (human, divine, combination, fully both). 

Because the LORD prophesies a thing concerning a human subject, does not mean that person has no choice.  Choice is not removed because the LORD has prophesied a future action.

On the other point:

I believe that Jesus Christ "emptied himself" to take the form and the nature "of a servant".   Of what did He empty himself?  The Greek word means "void" or "empty". 

Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10).  

Why would Jesus need His Father to do the works?  If He was equal in power, why not just do the works Himself?  More still, if Jesus was the same divine being/person (God), then He would have no need to be indwelt by His Father (a second being).   

Without the indwelling of His Father - the "fullness of the God" would Jesus have been able to do the works?  "The works" to include not just miracles, but also perfect conformity to the will of His Father. 

Did Jesus have the choice - to receive or reject the indwelling of His Father, or was Jesus (because of His existence as God) simply part of "God" with no separate identity or existence?  

I personally believe that Father and Son are two separate persons/beings - each with individual will.  Therefore Christ could have resisted/rejected His Father's will. 

One does not need to suffer from "violent cognitive dissonance", to believe that God (defined as "the Father") beget a second divine being out of Himself (in His exact image), and that He "sent" His begotten "Son" into this world. 

How or better said what would you classify an impossible hypothetical to be? 

 

Isaiah 7,14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

What would you say if I said; 'Christ COULD HAVE been born by a Pythia of the Temple of Apollo'? 

You could submit any "hypothetical" mother in place of a Pythia of Apollo's Temple but in each case the hypothetical would be a fallacy. Had Jesus been born of the Pythia of Apollo's Temple it would have only meant Jesus WASN'T THE CHRIST.

 

Micah 5,2: AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.

What would you say if I said; 'Christ COULD HAVE never set foot in Bethlehem. Christ could have been born in Egypt and spent all his childhood there skipping rocks in the Nile River? 

ANY hypothetical deviation from what the Law and the Prophets said would happen would only prove one thing - that Jesus wasn't the Christ. 

So, SURE, I can agree with you that Jesus INDEED COULD HAVE SINNED but that would only have indicated that Jesus wasn't The Christ in the 1st place. It's as simple as that. 

Luke 24,44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me

Any deviation from ANYTHING that the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms said about The Christ just defaults into Jesus not being "The Holy One" of Israel in the 1st place - Just  as the Old Testament clearly says. 

Jesus ALWAYS did the Will of the His Father, THAT'S why He came in the first place. Remember He was "SENT". 

 

[8thdaypriest]

23 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think we talked awhile back about "would not" vs "could not".  One has to do with God's all-knowledge (including the future), and the other has to do with Christ's nature (human, divine, combination, fully both). 

Because the LORD prophesies a thing concerning a human subject, does not mean that person has no choice.  Choice is not removed because the LORD has prophesied a future action.

On the other point:

I believe that Jesus Christ "emptied himself" to take the form and the nature "of a servant".   Of what did He empty himself?  The Greek word means "void" or "empty". 

Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10).  

Why would Jesus need His Father to do the works?  If He was equal in power, why not just do the works Himself?  More still, if Jesus was the same divine being/person (God), then He would have no need to be indwelt by His Father (a second being).   

Without the indwelling of His Father - the "fullness of the God" would Jesus have been able to do the works?  "The works" to include not just miracles, but also perfect conformity to the will of His Father. 

Did Jesus have the choice - to receive or reject the indwelling of His Father, or was Jesus (because of His existence as God) simply part of "God" with no separate identity or existence?  

I personally believe that Father and Son are two separate persons/beings - each with individual will.  Therefore Christ could have resisted/rejected His Father's will. 

One does not need to suffer from "violent cognitive dissonance", to believe that God (defined as "the Father") beget a second divine being out of Himself (in His exact image), and that He "sent" His begotten "Son" into this world. 

I thought of few more.

Romans 5:10 "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, (Rom 5:10 NKJ)

2 Corinthians 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,

The Father was "in" Christ.  That is what Jesus said - "The Father who dwells in me" (John 14:10).

"There is one God, the Father" (1Cor 8:6). 

The Father was "in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."  "God" is referred to using the gender words "He" and "Him" - not they or them.

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me"

Hebrews 1:9 "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You."

Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him."

Acts 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together"

John 5:26 "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"

How did God the Father grant Jesus that power - to "have life in Himself"?  Answer:  He anointed His Son with His own spirit - essentially with Himself, His own presence.  

If Jesus, during His incarnation, was equally God in power, then He would not need to receive power from His Father, in order to "have life in Himself".   The point is that Jesus emptied Himself of divine power, to incarnate with the nature and form of a man, in order to overcome as a man. 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

How or better said what would you classify an impossible hypothetical to be? 

Isn't that an oxymoron - "an impossible hypothetical" ? 

If something can (hypothetically) be, then it is not impossible. 

[Gustave]

17 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Isn't that an oxymoron - "an impossible hypothetical" ? 

If something can (hypothetically) be, then it is not impossible. 

An "impossible" possibility doesn't exist - however an "individual" can postulate one.

An oxymoron = is simply the joining of two words, being opposite to convey an idea that DOES or CAN exist. Such as Jumbo Shrimp.

What you're proposing is a paradox that requires God be re-defined into something other than the Scriptures define God to be.

[8thdaypriest]

COULD - vs - WOULD

God alone possesses knowledge of the future (Isa 44:6-8, I Cor 1:25)  Only He can really "declare the things which are to come hereafter" (Isa 41:23). 

The "test" of a true prophet, was the fulfillment of what they had predicted (by the Spirit of the LORD).  It is the accuracy of the prediction that proves the prophet (Jer 28:9). 

The LORD gave prophesies about persons other than the Christ.  Sometimes the subject of the prophecy would do good things, sometimes evil things.  Ishmael would be "a wild ass", fighting with everyone.  The Antichrist will do very evil things.  The Little Horn would persecute the people of God.  The enemies of Israel would attack, and would then be defeated.  Jerusalem would be destroyed (by Babylon) - prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  Israel would turn away from the LORD. 

Does that mean these people COULD NOT do otherwise.  Hmmmmm.  That means they had/have no free will.  God said they WOULD do it, therefore they WOULD do it.  That gets into predestination. 

My point here is that God's foreknowledge of the future actions of human beings, has nothing to do with what they "could do".  It has everything to do with proving His foreknowledge, with validating His own prophets, with validating His own Son - proving His Son's identity.  

Foreknowledge of what Christ WOULD do, is not a good proof of what He COULD do - of what His own human free will would allow Him to do.  

Are you saying that Christ did not have free will?  Are you saying that Christ had no will of His own? 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

An "impossible" possibility doesn't exist - however an "individual" can postulate one.

An oxymoron = is simply the joining of two words, being opposite to convey an idea that DOES or CAN exist. Such as Jumbo Shrimp.

What you're proposing is a paradox that requires God be re-defined into something other than the Scriptures define God to be.

Gustave, 

You and I have different views concerning the Scripture's "definition" of God. 

You believe the Scripture's "define" God as a Trinity.  I do not. 

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave, 

You and I have different views concerning the Scripture's "definition" of God. 

You believe the Scripture's "define" God as a Trinity.  I do not. 

Sacred Scripture identifies The Father as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies The Son as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies The Holy Spirit as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies only ONE God.

If you or I could explain the Nature of God we'd be God - which we're NOT and never will be.

This is what God has revealed to us in His Word - we either accept it or shake-N-bake a religion that's more to our own individual taste.

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Sacred Scripture identifies The Father as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies The Son as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies The Holy Spirit as God.

Sacred Scripture identifies only ONE God.

If you or I could explain the Nature of God we'd be God - which we're NOT and never will be.

This is what God has revealed to us in His Word - we either accept it or shake-N-bake a religion that's more to our own individual taste.

 

Gustave,

I'm sorry that I frustrate you.   I don't believe I'm "shake-N-bake".   I believe there is more evidence - in Scripture, for my view that "God" is "the Father".   While it's true that the Son of God was begotten a divine being exactly like His Father, that did not make Him equal to His Father.  The Father has always and will always be "head of Christ" (1Cor 11).  Father and Son are not two equal parts of "God".  And there is no third divine being called "the Holy Spirit".  The Father himself "is Spirit".  That is why we are commanded to "worship the Father", and are never commanded to worship the Holy Spirit. 

Mark 12:32 So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He."

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

John 20:17  "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God."

[Spoken to His Father, in Christ's final public prayer]   John 17:3  Father . . . . "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

2 Corinthians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, (2Co 1:3 NKJ)

"our God and Father" (Gal 1:4, Phil 4:20, 1Th 1:3, 1Th 3:4, 1Th 3:13, 2Th 2:16, Jam 3:9) 

"God our Father" (Rom 1:7, 1Cor 1:3, 2Cor 1:2, Eph 1:2, Phil 1:2, 1Th 1:1, 2Th 1:1, 2Th 1:2, Phm 1:3)

"Our Father" = "Our God"

"His God and Father"  (Rev 1:6, Rev 3:12, John 20:17).  

[Gustave]

8thday,

When do you understand that The Son was begotten by The Father?

[8thdaypriest]

15 minutes ago, Gustave said:

8thday,

When do you understand that The Son was begotten by The Father?

"In the beginning"

John 1:2 "He was in the beginning with God."

He is "the firstborn over all creation". (Col 1:15)

Christ called Himself "the beginning". 

Revelation 21:6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts."   You remember in John 4, how Jesus told the women she had only to ask and He would have given her "living water".

He was begotten in eternity - yes, but at the junction of eternity with God's creating. 

Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God".

Revelation 3:14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,`These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:"  

Doesn't mean that Christ was created.  He was "begotten".  Means that the Father's act, to beget His Son, set in motion His plan to create everything that was created. 

God became a "father", when He beget His Son.  After that, the Father did everything through His Son.

God the Father planned to create "through" His Son, and "for" His Son.  He planned to communicate with created beings "through" His Son.  Because He "saw" that sin would happen, He knew that He would reconcile some portion of His creation to Himself, through His Son.  He would heal and restore "through" His Son.