Heresy of Arianism

[redleghunter]

Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation and because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.


https://carm.org/arianism

 

[redleghunter]

Arianism is almost impossible to define. Since almost everything he ever wrote was burned by the 'church', about the only information we have is that offered by the 'church'. And it has proven over and over that it fabricated almost everything that exists so far as 'history' is concerned.

Blessings,

MEC

Do you think the Vatican archives may have some of his works left? I think there was speculation of such quite a few years ago.

But yes we have mainly one side of the debate. However, much can be pieced together from the works we do have.

 

[redleghunter]

Does the Vatican possess writings that they have hidden from the populace? Oh my. Most of the 'true' ancient writings are most likely possessed by the CC. Stored in vaults that will never be unlocked to the public. Works of Arius? Perhaps. But we'll never have access to them.

But even what the CC accused Arius of, their accusations against him are not really accusations from my perspective.

I believed in much of what the CC accuses Arius of teaching long before I had ever heard of his name.

So I am not an Arian. I do not follow the teachings of Arius. But I have arrived at many of the same conclusions that the 'church' labels as heresy long before I ever started studying church history. Or Roman Catholic Church history.

Blessings,

MEC

Perhaps we should wait for the next fiction novel from Dan Brown.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation and because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.


https://carm.org/arianism

From what I understand the heretic Arius said something like " there was a time when the Son was not" and that was his heresy in a nutshell. The Son was and always was eternal God.

We read in scripture of the Son of God without beginning of days in hebrews 7 and many other verses could be brought to show the eternal Son

For anyone today to definite the eternal Son of God is to deny the Son of God in truth and so they have not the father by saying so. As 1 John 2 speaks of and other places.

by the way one of the most powerful Tri Unity sections of scripture is Isaiah 48:15-20 or so

we read of the Lord God and His Spirit sending him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Arianism is almost impossible to define. Since almost everything he ever wrote was burned by the 'church', about the only information we have is that offered by the 'church'. And it has proven over and over that it fabricated almost everything that exists so far as 'history' is concerned.

Blessings,

MEC

The Creed of Ulfilas (Wulfila), an Arian bishop, is contained in the Letter of Auxentius of Durostorum, Ulfilas' pupil and also an Arian bishop.

So, yes, we actually do have Arian teachings preserved:

"I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,

I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father." - http://web.archive.org/web/20090301010542/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html

(Scripture references added in translation have been removed to ease reading, otherwise the automated hyperlinking of passages on CF can result in disjointed reading--the link to the source has said passages so it can be read on there also if one prefers)

Arianism taught that the Son and Word was a creature; this Logos was truly divine, indeed called God, but was a secondary, junior God to the Father. Thus in Arian theology there were two Gods: the uncreated and unbegotten Father of all, and the lesser God, the Logos, the first creation of the Father through which all things were made. Thus the Logos/Son in Arian theology functioned similarly to the Demiurge of Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, as the medium through which The Good or The One crafted the material universe. Alexander, Athanasius, and many opposed this for a number of reasons, one obvious reason is that it flies in the face of Christian monotheism. While Arius desired to avoid the error of Sabellius, Arius went to an extreme; and so both Sabellianism and Arianism represent two extremes that were ultimately rejected by the Church.

Sabellianism saying that Jesus was the Father incarnate and that "the Son" is merely a mask or face which the Father wore while in the flesh; and Arianism saying that the Son was heteroousios, a different thing, another God altogether, than the Father. The orthodox position therefore stated that the Son is both homoousios (the same being) and distinct from the Father; therefore "God of God" "begotten, not made". The Son is not the Father, but He is God even as the Father is God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Do you think the Vatican archives may have some of his works left? I think there was speculation of such quite a few years ago.

But yes we have mainly one side of the debate. However, much can be pieced together from the works we do have.

Nothing of interest, that has not already been reviewed ad nauseum.

The essence of Arianism comes from a letter he penned explaining his doctrine, which one finds in the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, et cetera.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Does the Vatican possess writings that they have hidden from the populace? Oh my. Most of the 'true' ancient writings are most likely possessed by the CC. Stored in vaults that will never be unlocked to the public. Works of Arius? Perhaps. But we'll never have access to them.

But even what the CC accused Arius of, their accusations against him are not really accusations from my perspective.

I believed in much of what the CC accuses Arius of teaching long before I had ever heard of his name.

So I am not an Arian. I do not follow the teachings of Arius. But I have arrived at many of the same conclusions that the 'church' labels as heresy long before I ever started studying church history. Or Roman Catholic Church history.

Blessings,

MEC

The history of the Roman Catholic Church is not relevant to a discussion of Arianism, which primarily occurred in the Church of Alexandria, and other Eastern churches, which were never under the control of the Papacy, although within the territory of the Roman church the Nicene Christians suffered persecution and Arian intrusion, in Milan in the fourth century, and later from the Lombards, Visigoths, et cetera.

A discussion of the history of the Greek or Coptic Orthodox on the other hand would be more directly pertinent, because Arius was a Greek speaking presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, and it was in the Eastern Empire where Nicene Christians experienced the most persecution.

The Visigoths and other Arians later in many cases converted with enthusiasm to Islam, which seems rather tailor made for those who would deny the deity of Christ.

 

[LoveofTruth]

What you have offered is 'personal interpretation' that does not exist in truth. Not ONE line of the Bible says what you say. Not once does the Bible say that if one does not accept Christ 'as God' that they 'do not accept' Christ in TRUTH. In fact, the Bible says that there is only ONE God and ONE 'only begotten SON of God. It does not say that Jesus is God. That is 'interpretation' without there actually being a single line that says that Jesus is THE God and Father.

What I have read states that we MUST accept Christ as God's SON. Nothing I have read tells us to 'believe' that Christ is God Himself.

And then I am forced to ask this: Who did Christ STATE that He IS? Not asking what men have 'come up with'.

And who, when asked, did the apostles SAY Christ is?

Not once did an apostle, when asked, state that they believed Christ to BE GOD.

Each, when asked, stated the 'same thing': the SON of the Living God.

And then there is 'this': upon the cross, when Christ uttered His last breath, He shouted out: "My God, my God why hath THOU forsaken ME"?

Hmmmm...........If Christ 'were God', could He have uttered such words in TRUTH? How does God forsake HIMSELF?

And when Christ was Baptized, if He were God, how do you suppose that John witnessed the SPIRIT of God descend upon Him?

For 'trinity' to be TRUTH, it must stand up to it's claims.

'Trinity' claims that the Father and that the Son are EQUAL in 'all respects'.

Yet we have the words of Christ Himself stating that the Father is GREATER than the Son. Now what kind of equality consists of two things being equal but one being "GREATER" than the other?

When I went to school we learned to use arrow signs that pointed to one thing being 'greater than' or 'less than' another. If we were to use this 'sign' in reference to Christ's words, it would look like this:
Father, (God)>The Son.

This is what Christ STATED. Our Savior, the one 'entity' that is crucial to our very Salvation, stated that His Father, (who we KNOW is God), is greater than the Son, (Himself). Not my words, straight out of the Bible.

But if what 'trinity' defines is the truth, it would look like this:

Father, (who is God)=The Son of God.

But that is not what the Bible tells us. The Son was SENT by God. The Son's power was 'given Him' by God. The Son prayed TO God. And then there is this:

Almost every epistle of Paul's starts something like this:

Ephesians 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, (this plainly states that the Father IS God), and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ

Wow, talk about confusing? If Paul recognized Christ 'as God', these words sure are confusing. 'from God OUR FATHER, and the Lord Jesus Christ'. You gotta be joking. Two SEPARATE entities: one BEING God, the other being our LORD.

And then the clincher: Blessed be THE God and FATHER OF CHRIST. Wow, no 'three in one' here. God, the Father, is THE God and Father of Christ. Christ's Father IS His God. I don't think that there can be much confusion about these words. They are pretty simple. Not designed to be confusing I can assure you. But if I were to consider 'trinity', then they become UTTERLY confusing. They are NO LONGER 'simple words' but words that one must try and alter their simplicity in order to MAKE them fit anything other than what they were MEANT to portray.

And then there is this:

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The 'simplicity' that is IN Christ. Hmmmm............I have listened to just about any and everything that could be offered concerning 'trinity'. I find "NOTHING SIMPLE" about it. It is not only a very complex doctrine that even those that 'created it' admit still remains a 'mystery' even after being divinely revealed.

The very idea that one plus one plus one equals ONE is confusing. For in every other aspect of our lives, this equation equals THREE. Nothing 'simple' there. And once one can be convinced that one plus one plus one equals ONE, golly Miss Molly, is there anything that they couldn't be 'brainwashed' into believing? That to me is no different than convincing someone that blue is really red and red is really blue. If you could somehow convince someone to 'accept this', what couldn't you influence them to accept?

'Trinity' INSISTS that Father and Son are EQUAL in every respect. Christ's own words deny this.

So what do you think I place my faith in? The Bible and the actual words of Christ? Or men that came along later and introduced this 'idea' of 'trinity'?

Blessings,

MEC

Jesus said he was God in Luke 4 as we read

"And Jesus ...2 Being forty days tempted of the devil...And the devil said unto him...11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

this is as clear as it gets. Jesus said that he was God and told the devil he should not tempt the Lord His God. The devil was tempting Jesus, and so Jesus is God and he said so.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus said he was God in Luke 4 as we read

"And Jesus ...2 Being forty days tempted of the devil...And the devil said unto him...11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

this is as clear as it gets. Jesus said that he was God and told the debil he should not tempt the Lord His God. The devil was tempting jesus, and so Jesus is God and he said so.

I guess Thomas was convinced :
John 20:

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Philip_B]

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.​

There is no doubt that Arianism rose to prominence in the 4th Century, and was an important matter was addressed at the 1 Council of Nicaea (325) and the 1st Council of Constantinople (381). We often forget how prominent it was in the life of the Church at that time. The Third Council of Toledo (579) was important because here Recarred renounced the Arianism and embraced the Catholic Faith bringing with him pretty much all the leadership of the Iberian Peninsular. Important in the Italian Peninsular were centres like Milan and Ravena. The Arian Mission to the Goths and the Vandals was very successful in the late 4th and 5th centuries, and so it was in important strand of heterodox Christianity in Europe.

That being said, Arius was a Greek speaker in Alexandria, and the matter was largely an Eastern Church issue, though widely embraced as mentioned above in Iberia and Germany. The rise of Islam initially was regarded by many as a new outburst of of a variant Arian heresy, till it became clear it was a different religion.

Following the Reformation, Unitarianism and Latitudinarianism are effectively variants. There are various forms of Christianity today that do not follow the Trinitarian Faith of the Nicene Creed. Many of these will be Arian or Semi-Arian.

The Church has invested historically a great deal in establishing that correct belief is expressed in the Nicene Creed. This creed specifically rejects Arianism.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.​

The Chalcedonian definition Council of Chalcedon - 454) which was addressing other issues that had arisen, also clearly outlines our understanding of the nature of Christ, and there is no wiggle room for Arianism here either.

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.​

I fear that some of this theology is not flashy enough for some , however I think it reads well enough for me. I ackowledge that the Alexandrians were treated poorly at the Council of Chalcedon and misrepresented. the following paragraph is from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/me...greed-statement-on-christology-cairo-2014.pdf

The term ‘monophysite’, which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term ‘miaphysite’ to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of ‘Oriental Orthodox’. The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say ‘a single nature’ would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches.​

 

[redleghunter]

The history of the Roman Catholic Church is not relevant to a discussion of Arianism, which primarily occurred in the Church of Alexandria, and other Eastern churches, which were never under the control of the Papacy, although within the territory of the Roman church the Nicene Christians suffered persecution and Arian intrusion, in Milan in the fourth century, and later from the Lombards, Visigoths, et cetera.

A discussion of the history of the Greek or Coptic Orthodox on the other hand would be more directly pertinent, because Arius was a Greek speaking presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, and it was in the Eastern Empire where Nicene Christians experienced the most persecution.

The Visigoths and other Arians later in many cases converted with enthusiasm to Islam, which seems rather tailor made for those who would deny the deity of Christ.

Thank you for the insight.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Do you think the Vatican archives may have some of his works left? I think there was speculation of such quite a few years ago.

But yes we have mainly one side of the debate. However, much can be pieced together from the works we do have.

Arius

An heresiarch, born about A.D.ú 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 religiousviews from Lucian, the presbyter ofAntioch, and afterwards the martyr, took sides with Meletius, anEgyptian schismatic, against Peter,Bishop of Alexandria. But a reconciliation followed, and Peterordained Arius deacon. Further disputes led the Bishop toexcommunicate his restlesschurchman, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter'ssuccessor, was made presbyter by him in 313, and had the charge of a well-known district in Alexandriacalled Baucalis. This entitled Arius to expound the Scriptures officially, and he exercised much influence when, in 318, his quarrel with BishopAlexander broke out over the fundamental truth of Our Lord'sdivine Sonship and substance.......


Sources
SOZOMEN, H.E., 1, 68, 69; THEODORET, H.E., 1; SOCRATES, H.E., 1; PHILOSTORG., 1; ATHAN., De Synodis; EUSEB., De Vita Constantini; RUFIN., H.E., 1; TRAVASA, Vita di Ario (Venice, 1746); GIBBON, XXI; NEWMAN,Arians, 2, 3; Tracts, Causes of Arianism.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arius

.

 

[Landon Caeli]

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arianism

 

[Philip_B]

Arianism was alive and well on the Italian Peninsular, The Arian Baptistery in Ravena bears witness to this, and we should not forget that Ambrose was elected Bishop of Milan (though he was not in orders) on the strength that the loyal band of Arians following the former Bishop of Milan felt that Ambrose dealt very kindly with them. Indeed sometime following the 1st Council of Constantinople Ambrose, himself a Nicene Christian wrote to the Pope arguing the worth of the Apostle Creed - which clearly was a more comfortable position for an Arian Christian.

 

[droptozro]

From what I understand the heretic Arius said something like " there was a time when the Son was not"

Actually it's known that Tertullian said that... and Justin Martyr called Jesus another lesser god than his God and Father in his dialogue with Trypho.

I find it kind of funny that most people condemn Arianism yet don't know it had a large standing in the early churches prior to Arius' popularity for the stance. Not saying it was the only view, but if you look at the various councils(the ones that are lesser known)--one after another condemned each other and condemned Arius or Athanasius.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Actually it's known that Tertullian said that... and Justin Martyr called Jesus another lesser god than his God and Father in his dialogue with Trypho.

I find it kind of funny that most people condemn Arianism yet don't know it had a large standing in the early churches prior to Arius' popularity for the stance. Not saying it was the only view, but if you look at the various councils(the ones that are lesser known)--one after another condemned each other and condemned Arius or Athanasius.

St. Athanasius was condemned by various councils convened by Constantius under the influence of the scheming Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Do you think the Vatican archives may have some of his works left? I think there was speculation of such quite a few years ago.

But yes we have mainly one side of the debate. However, much can be pieced together from the works we do have.

We have almost nothing by Arius, but quite a lot from Eusebius of Caesarea. Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote a very good book on Arius which may be of interest.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Actually it's known that Tertullian said that... and Justin Martyr called Jesus another lesser god than his God and Father in his dialogue with Trypho.

I find it kind of funny that most people condemn Arianism yet don't know it had a large standing in the early churches prior to Arius' popularity for the stance. Not saying it was the only view, but if you look at the various councils(the ones that are lesser known)--one after another condemned each other and condemned Arius or Athanasius.

I believe this was a quote from Aruis

"‘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 substance120 from nothing.’"

 

[LoveofTruth]

Actually it's known that Tertullian said that... and Justin Martyr called Jesus another lesser god than his God and Father in his dialogue with Trypho.

I find it kind of funny that most people condemn Arianism yet don't know it had a large standing in the early churches prior to Arius' popularity for the stance. Not saying it was the only view, but if you look at the various councils(the ones that are lesser known)--one after another condemned each other and condemned Arius or Athanasius.

The Son of God is eternal without beginning of days or end of days, he is before all things and by him all things consist. He created all things and so if he created all things then he did not create himself and he was not a created being. Read Colossians 1 Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 7 about the Son of God

 

[Philip_B]

I think that part of where Arius went wrong was he failed to consider the a-temporal nature of the divine. Once you account for that the notion of eternally begotten, which which he struggled, is entirely sensible.