There are many things like this Doctrines are fairly stable Explanations come and go Doctrines need not be understood to be believed Doctrines are believed on the basis that their source is God not depending on whether they are understood Mkmcconn That s a very a historical point of view The church was coming out with doctrinal statements about the trinity and the Arians were twisting them and believing them So the church went back and clarified what they meant That s why some of the creeds are quite amazingly pedantic It s also a non sensical point of view You can t believe a bunch of words devoid of underlying meaning You either believe them as they were meant you mis interpret them and thus mis believe them or you pretend to believe them But there is no such thing as believing them without having a modicum of understanding Sure you can believe some words are from God but not know what they mean but then you don t believe the doctrine you believe that there are some words that are true If you read a few dozen explanations on the begottenness of the Son from a spectrum of historical and contemporary sources including Augustine you will not find that this doctrine is connected to theories of time despite what the deleted section claims about these theories being the root of the doctrine Apparently you didn t read what Augustine wrote Let me refresh your memory Your today yields not with tomorrow for neither does it follow yesterday Your today is eternity therefore You begat the Co eternal to whom You said This day have I begotten Thee Thou hast made all time and before all times You are nor in any time was there not time Augustine directly links God being external to time with the begetting of the Son Now if you have a different point of view prove it Otherwise it is just hand waving and show Don t understand the sentence above Pfortuny People are interested in the relationship between biblical doctrine and science What is the problem with a ONE LINE reference Now my question is have any published theologians linked Einstein s theories about time with the eternity of God There s plenty of people thinking about this issue Lewis is a published theologian is he not Here is a paper from a college dealing with it Probably but this is my oppinion very little more if more than the tautology not created not made and without a beginning Pfortuny 17 46 5 May 2004 UTC Instead of opinions let s have have evidence from church fathers No it is not that the filioque is fact or oppinion what matters here What matters here is what the doctrine of the Church is not what it means what it refers to or whatever Pfortuny The doctrine of the church is important but what it means is irrelevant Come on Why look up Wik if not to find out what something means You don t need Wik to read the Athanasian creed You need Wik to understand it in its historical context To answer your first question the Church defines which beliefs are dogma Then point me to where I can buy a book or books which is the final word on Christian dogma Then I can verify for myself what parts of this article are dogma and which are opinion Don t say the bible because it doesn t mention eternal generation For Orthodox at least it s a theological opinion that Mary lived a sinless life Ah huh But for Catholics it is DOGMA Thus what is and isn t dogma the OPINION of different churches and persons At the end of the day folks I have taken a quote from a church father that directly addresses the issue of eternally begotten to explain to the reader the meaning To take it down you would have to show either a Augustine was out of step with the rest of the church at this point b The church was so confused there are too many theories to discuss But to just say let it be a mystery Don t tell them what it means sorry that doesn t wash