- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I thought this discussion may prove to be useful.
I have heard conflicting evidence regarding the so-called Arians. It appears to me that they were in conflict with the Trinitarians over Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.
I know that Arius and Athanasius were in opposition regarding their teachings. They both came from Alexandria in Egypt. Athanasius was the main proponent of the Trinity doctrine and Constantine the Emperor favoured Athanasius's doctrine (after swaying some what). Constantine apparently ordered all of Arius writings to be burned or face death. It also appears over time that Arius fell into favour (but was killed before receiving an honour of some kind) and Athanasius (perhaps the Father of the Trinity doctrine) was banished to an outer province of the Roman Empire. I have also heard the following regarding Arius:
- That he believed that Jesus was just a man who was exhalted to become the son of God. Or
- that he believed that Jesus was the son of God and that he was begotten of God. That Jesus was even divine, i.e., that he had the nature of God, but was not God himself.
Of course both points are in conflict. But whatever the truth is, I think it will be a journey of discovery.
It could be that Athanasius and Arius represent the maturity of 2 sides of a deception that Origen mentions that was starting to appear in his time. I can quote Origen later in this discussion. Or could it be that Arius was indeed a true teacher and was persecuted and killed as many from God are.
I do not know, but it would be interested in finding out the truth regarding this.
Hi t8,
My Enc Brit has this to say about Arianism;” It confirmed that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. The fundamental premise of Arius was the uniqueness of God, who alone is self-existent and immutable;the Son, who is not self existent cannot be God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated so that the Son cannot be God. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, being represented in the gospels as subject to growth and change, cannot be God.
The Son must be therefore deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.
According to it's opponents, esp Athanasius, Arius's teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism[since worship of the Son was not abandoned]and undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled man to the Godhead.
The controversy seemed to have been brought to an end by the cl of Nicaea[ad 325] which condemned Arius and his teaching and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox christian belief. This creed states that the Son is “of one substance with the Father” thus declaring him to be all the Father is;he is completely divine. In fact this was only the beginning of a very protracted dispute.”
From this creed grew trinity theory either as two then three equal expressions of God [modalism]or three different unequal persons[subordinationism]and in the 4th century it was a combined version that became orthodoxy[3 persons/one essence]. There never was any clear scriptural basis for these theories.
So I disagree with both extreme views. If either party knew the Lord or the Word these disputes would never has arisen. The insertions and human understandings of theologians destroyed the simplicity of truth .Their boxes cannot contain God.
What about other opinions?Hi,
So where did the Arians go wrong?
They diminish the Son of God.
The Son of God was begotten and not created.
He has divine nature, like the Father, and is the image of the Father, greater than all created beings.
He has life in himself as given by the Father.[Jn 5.26]
God is unique but He sends His Spirit into His Son, into us and throughout His creation.
The 'outer man' of the Son too had to learn through obedience. That did not change his inner nature.
God sent the Son to reconcile man to Himself and the son has also given us the same task af reconciliation.
Men worship the Son but that is not the plan of God.Hi,
Interesting how Satan used Arius's error to establish Athanasius as a false teacher. The latter's teachings were equally pernicious, perhaps worse, as he was used , with the help of the Roman Emperor and others, to remove the Son of God as the head of the church and to alter the worship of God to that of a trinity.Thus began the false church which has flourished and thrived since then apart from truth and without God.
But God kept a remnant.
“Every plant my Father did not plant must be pulled out” and the fall of Babylon must be soon on the timetable of God.
“come ye out of her my people lest you be punished for her sins”Hi,
Those who are led to reject trinity as false teaching find little understanding among those who cling to it. There is certainly a huge gulf that develops between the two sides because this issue strikes at the very heart of belief in God, the foundation of the relationship with God.
Often they are branded as Arians. They are warned that they have adopted doctrines of the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Mormons. I do not believe these things are so and I do believe the Master is pleased with his servants who treat his teachings as more important than the doctrines of men.
What do others think?Thanks for your posts Nick.
It seems that one man's error created a situation that certain other men tried to correct or counter balance. This led to the opposing argument being false as well. We often see this with man and his dealings. A neglect can lead to a rebellion and at times that rebellion is just as worse. Some countries where the citizens are in poverty overthrow the governent and aristocrisy and set up a communist government to redistribute the wealth, only to find that they have traded one kind of evil for another, or one kind of abuse for another.
So far it appears that Arius taught that Christ was a creature. Is this a direct quote from his teachings? Or is it recorded that he said that?
The only way to be set free is to seek the truth with all your heart. Even then people will try to slap labels on us, saying you are a follower of Arius etc. But are they not mere men who say this?
I would still like to seek further what Arius taught and perhaps with some tangible evidence. The reason for this is I know too well how men can distort the words of another and Arius did suffer a persecution and his writings were supposedly destroyed. So before I write this guys teachings off completely I would like to give him an opportunity to prove himself by what he taught. Direct quotes would be good and perhaps a source for the quote. I will have a look and make some quotes in future posts.
I will start with this one from Nick.
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Son must be therefore deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son is finite and of a different order of existence.Does the encyclopaedia have a source for this quote?
It seems that Athanasius and Arius were at opposite ends of each other. Today it could be said that Arians are JWs or Unitarians and Athanasians are Catholics or one of her daughters. This may be so if Aruis truly said some of the things that some say he did.
But why do we have to choose one or the other?
The answer is we don't. Truth comes not by picking the winner of 2 men, but by the Spirit of God.Perhaps both men were working in the flesh? The way of the Spirit is neither men or denomination.
But I do admit to not knowing too much about Arius's doctrine. Some things he supposedly said I disagree with, but I wonder if he truly said those things.
Did Arius really deny that Jesus was begotten of the Father, and demote him to a mere creature? That's what some say, but I am not sure if those quotes are accurate because I have also read that he said that Jesus was begotten, but his supposed crime was to say that “that there was a time when the Son was not”.
The jury is out for me regarding Arius. But if he demotes Jesus to a creature, then I would say that modern day Arius's are JWs and Unitarians.
Hi,
This is from Wikipedia
“Information regarding the life and teachings of Arius is limited; most of Arius' writings, deemed heretical by the Council of Nicea, were consequently destroyed. Indeed, our only record of his teaching is found in writings of those who opposed him and denounced him as a heretic – sources which are obviously far from dispassionate. Yet these, as the only surviving references to him, are all the scholars have. These few remaining works credited to him are Epiphanius recordings of his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, Theodoret's recording of his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Athanasius' recording of fragments of Thalia, a popularized work combining prose and verse.[edit]
Early life
Arius was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was both a celebrated Christian teacher and a martyr for the faith. However, in a letter to bishop Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria wrote that Arius derived his heresy from Lucian. The object of his letter is to complain of the errors Arius was then spreading but the charges in the letter are vague and are unsupported by other authorities. Alexander's language, like that of most controversialists in those days, is not a little violent. Moreover, Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander himself, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards promulgated by Arius, but is accused ad invidiam of heretical tendencies.The historian Socrates Scholasticus reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria Arius, when he made the following syllogism: “‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.’”
Alexander accused him of low morality. He no doubt had a disproportionate number of female supporters, but there are no grounds for Alexander's insinuation in the letter, that these women were of loose morals. There appears, however, more foundation for his charge that Arius allowed the songs or odes contained in the book called Thaleia — which he wrote after his first condemnation, in order to popularize his doctrine — to be set to melodies with infamous associations. Thus, the furious debates among Christians in Egypt “became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres.” (Socrates)
The patriarch of Alexandria has been the subject of adverse criticism for his slow action against his subordinate. Like his predecessor Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it is difficult to see how he could have acted otherwise than he did. The question, as we have seen, had been left unsettled two generations previously, or, if in any sense it could be said to have been settled, it had been settled in favour of the opponents of the homoousion. Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy to go on until he felt that it had become dangerous to the peace of the church. Then he called a council of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. Once they decided against Arius, Alexander delayed no longer. He deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters. Then he wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger he presented to the Christian church.
In Arius's own letter (also extant) to Eusebius of Nicomedia, it is found a summary of the theology that Alexander considered unacceptable:
“That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.”
He states something similar in Thalia:“God has not always been Father; there was a moment when he was alone, and was not yet Father: later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; he came from nothing.[2]
[edit]
Arius's Concept of Christ
This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son, a part of Christology, had been raised before Arius, for example, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in AD 269 for his agreement with those who had used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at that time thought to have a Sabellian tendency, though, as events showed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed, Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria responded with an explanation, which posterity has been inclined to interpret as vacillating. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favor of the opinions later championed by Arius. But this settlement was so unsatisfactory that the question would have been reopened sooner or later, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, and Patriarch Alexander undertook its defense in another.Arius formulated the following doctrines about Jesus:
that the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a “time” [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as chronos or aeon] when He did not exist.
The subsequent controversy shows that Arius' avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning and that, to use Dorner's words (Person of Christ, ii. 115), “the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act” – or in other words, the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. However, Arius seems to have further support in his view as his is purely intellectual, whereas those claiming the eternity of the “begotten” (i.e. created, made, or produced) Son need textual revelation to back their belief, which they have not been able to gather.Arius was obviously perplexed by this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself, had studied under Lucian. It is to be regretted that so much stress
should have been laid in the controversy on words, but this is understood under the influence of Greek philosophical thought, with concepts such as “substance” that are alien to the Jewish religious experience of the Divine. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language on a subject which Athanasius seems to have admitted that it was beyond his power thoroughly to comprehend – he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism. Bishop Macedonius, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same way that the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Arius undoubtedly drew some support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance to the Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But the speculations of Origen were then, as well as currently, considered as pioneer work in theology, often hazarded to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why in this, as well as other controversies, the authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.”Hi,
Here is the Catholic encylopaedia's view of Arius.
“Arius
An heresiarch, born about A.D. 250; died 336. He is said to have been a Libyan by descent. His father's name is given as Ammonius. In 306, Arius, who had learnt his religious views from Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, and afterwards the martyr, took sides with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. But a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon. Further disputes led the Bishop to excommunicate his restless churchman, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter's successor, was made presbyter by him in 313, and had the charge of a well-known district in Alexandria called Baucalis. This entitled Arius to expound the Scriptures officially, and he exercised much influence when, in 318, his quarrel with Bishop Alexander broke out over the fundamental truth of Our Lord's divine Sonship and substance. (See ARIANISM.) While many Syrian prelates followed the innovator, he was condemned at Alexandria in 321 by his diocesan in a synod of nearly one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops. Deprived and excommunicated, the heresiarch fled to Palestine. He addressed a thoroughly unsound statement of principles to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who yet became his lifelong champion and who had won the esteem of Constantine by his worldly accomplishments. In his house the proscribed man, always a ready writer, composed in verse and prose a defence of his position which he termed “Thalia”. A few fragments of it survive. He is also said to have published songs for sailors, millers, and travellers, in which his creed was illustrated. Tall above the common, thin, ascetical, and severe, he has been depicted in lively colours by Epiphanius (Heresies, 69, 3); but his moral character was never impeached except doubtfully of ambition by Theodoret. He must have been of great age when, after fruitless negotiations and a visti to Egypt, he appeared in 325 at Nic&aea, where the confession of faith which he presented was torn in pieces. With his writings and followers he underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Tehonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint's refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people. He had winning manners, an evasive style, and a disputatious temper. But in the controversy which is called after his name, Arius counted only at the beginning. He did not represent the tradition of Alexandria but the topical subtleties of Antioch. Hence, his disappearance from the scene neither stayed the combatants nor ended the quarrel which he had rashly provoked. A party-theologian, he exhibited no features of genius; and he was the product, not the founder, of a school.”Hi,
And here is the Catholic view of the doctrine.
“DOCTRINEFirst among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27; John 10:36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny's observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A.D. 60 and 200, to a number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their “conjugations” of Divine powers, and “emanations” from the Supreme unknowable God (the “Deep” and the “Silence”) all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the “likeness” of the Son to His Father and “sameness” of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, “God neither begets, nor is He begotten” (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.
Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.
But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circuminession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term “Son,” and the period of His “generation” (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like “the second God,” concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, “subordinate” to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is
the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.”Hi,
Anthanasius is regarded as a saint by Roman Catholicism and he was the main proponent of trinity doctrine and with Emperor Constantine helped establish the teaching as orthodoxy.This is from Wikipedia.
“The tactics of Athanasius, while often downplayed by church historians, were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled an “ecclesiastical mafia” that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement “built up and perpetuated by violence.” (Barnes, 230). Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents. Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for “bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder. (Rubenstein, 6) While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria”
Not great fruit.
True the fruit is rotten, but there are so many that follow him. Probably most that follow him have never heard of him and do not realise where some of their doctrines come from.
Hey T8, Nick & Frank,
Great posts! Re Arius, a new book is available on the Arian Controversy entitled:
“The Day Jesus Became God”. It gives the historical background of the two fighting
sides of Arius' day.Also really telling are Tertullian's Letters, specifically: Against Praxaes. Although he is considered the father of the trinity doctrine, what he says of Christ in his letters is VASTLY different than what the doctrine says today. Why? Well, this is proof that it was a manmade, developed doctrine which neither our Lord or his disciples taught or believed.
Since the Christian religion is dominated by trinitarians, you will seldom find Arius speaking for himself in any writings. This is because he and others who had ANY opinion which differed from the RCC were labeled heretics and their writing's were burned along with them on the stake. That is one reason why you will not see too many writings which support a monotheistic view of God.
Also for the record, Quakers also do not believe in the trinity. They aptly call that doctrine one of the many, “notions of men”. People will try to group you with JW's or Mormons as a way to limit your influence or effectiveness. It is called labeling and often shows those doing it don't have confidence in their own doctrines.
Great stuff guys,
Semmy
Hi,
Athanasius and his thoughts on the existence of the “only begotten Son” from Wikipedia.“Possibly during his first exile at Trier in 335-7 (after the First Synod of Tyre), although probably between 318 and 323, Athanasius wrote a double treatise entitled Against the Gentiles — On the Incarnation, affirming and explaining that Jesus was both God and Man. In his major theological opus, the Three Discourses Against the Arians, Athanasius stressed that the Father's begetting of the Son, or uttering of the Word, was an eternal relationship between them, not an event that took place within time.”
How can one consider a begettal– in any form– that does not involve a greater Original and a lesser Begotten?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
