Athanasius vs. Arius: Were they holy men or politicans?
- Thread starter mike1reynolds
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 29, 2006
- 3,709
- 98
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
That is an interesting point, what does begotten mean then?Bulldog said:
I don't believe that ANY soul has a beginning or end, unless they die the "second death".
Upvote
0
Gukkor
Senior Veteran
JCrawf said:
I concede that for a forum such as this, something akin to the Nicene Creed is almost a logical necessity if it is to have a Christians-only section. Nevertheless, even within those who are accepted as Christian, Scripture itself is frequently debated due to differences in perspective and interpretation. Being based in Scripture, would not the Nicene Creed also be bound by the perspective and interpretation of those who composed it? All I'm saying is that should we really be that afraid of questioning the Creed in the slightest?
Upvote
0
Counter-Reformer
Regular Member
- Jan 30, 2006
- 510
- 31
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
God by deffinition is self-begotten in himself as he is creator and uncreated. God would have and does eternally sustain himself. In the eternal begetting of the Logos, The Word, For if God the Father is eternally sustained, then God the Father has no beginning. If Jesus is the Logos of the Father, then Jesus would have to be eternally begotten from the Father, for If God is without his Logos, then the Father is mutable.Bulldog said:
Upvote
0
Gukkor said:
The Creed is a true guide to the Christian faith. Arius was not. Questioning is one thing. Denying it is another.
Pax Tecum,
John
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mike1reynolds said:
In the context of the Creed, it means that Christ comes directly born from the Father, not created as Adam and Eve, or even the Angels. The Father and the Son are of the same substance; Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made.
Pax Tecum,
John
Upvote
0
- Apr 29, 2006
- 3,709
- 98
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Self-begotten is an even more ambiguous term than begotten without beginning. Begotten and beginning aren’t just spelled similarly by chance, their linguistic derivations are very close to each other. Without a more concrete definition they appear to be self-contradictory oxymoron when trying to apply ordinary dictionary meanings to these phrases.Counter-Reformer said:
Upvote
0
Gukkor said:
The Nicene Creed is not wrong, period. And it is essentially at the cornerstone of CF, at least in the posturing of the rules.
Pax Tecum,
John
Upvote
0
- Apr 29, 2006
- 3,709
- 98
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
God is not made of matter so what does it mean to be made of the same substance as something that has no substance? God is pure consciousness.JCrawf said:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
mike1reynolds said:
Is matter the only thing with substance? No. Note that dictionary.com mentions substance to mean essential nature; essence in one of the definitions. Further, it goes on to state:
Synonyms: substance, burden, [SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE]core, gist, pith, purport
These nouns denote the essential import or significance of something spoken or written: the substance of his complaint; the burden of the President's speech; the core of an article; the gist of her argument; the pith of an essay; the purport of a document.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substance)These nouns denote the essential import or significance of something spoken or written: the substance of his complaint; the burden of the President's speech; the core of an article; the gist of her argument; the pith of an essay; the purport of a document.
Is a speech matter? Are words in general matter? No, but they do have substance. Even a mind, or consciousness has substance, an essence. Why? Because "knowledge" has a substance to it, and consciousness denotes something "with knowledge". How could something be "with" something that does not have substance? Knowledge itself is an abstract sort of substance. It certianly is not material, yet there are the phrases people use that indicate a substance of sort - such as "this person contains knolwedge" or, "the measure of his knowledge is profound." Knowledge is not matter, but it has substance. There is an essence to knowledge, and likewise, there is an essence to God, who proclaims to be the great I Am - which itself denotes existence.
Pax Tecum,
John
Upvote
0
- Apr 29, 2006
- 3,709
- 98
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Two speeches cant have the same substance, substance here means coherence and depth.JCrawf said:
Knowledge with substance is a term for accuracy, it is not a description of or a reference to the essence of the knowledge.JCrawf said:
But if you equate substance with consciousness this implies that they are the same consciousness, which defies the Creed.JCrawf said:
Upvote
0
mike1reynolds said:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of the same coherent Word of God. Do you not remember the Scriptures?
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father's hand.The Father and I are one." (John 10:27-30)
But knowledge has an essence, a substance to it, does it not? And knowledge itself is not composed of matter - yet it still has a substance, an essence. In short, it exists.
I am not saying anything of the sort. They have the same substance. Like knowledge, this substance is not of matter. There are still three persons in the Holy Trinity, of which their cohesion is the same substance. Do they have a same consciousness? It's hard to say. A collective conscious? Possibly. But certianly some sort of oneness in nature (not to be mistaken with the "oneness" of the anti-trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals).
Pax Tecum,
John
Upvote
0
I waded through this whole thread hoping to see some actual discussions concerning Arius and Athanasius that made sense. Unfortunately, I arrived at the end and was disappointed.
I think the first step in the discussion should be to look at the general history of the church. The church had struggle for four centuries with how to verbalize the complicated and somewhat mysterious concept of the Trinity and to explain the nature of God, Jesus and the Spirit. Prior to Arius and Athanasius there was also monarchism and modalism to name a couple of views. Many differing ideas were put forth over the centuries. These were gradually weeded out by a process of ellimination. The church basically said we aren't quite sure how to explain it but we know it isn't this _____ (insert view at the time).
Both men were seeking out a way to explain a view of God that seems inexplicable. This was the struggle of the whole church. How do you say you believe in one God but yet scripture shows three distinct manifestations of this one God. BTW, Arius' views were not deemed heretical until the Council of Nicea (an ecumenical council, meaning of all the church) formed their creed.
The creed states that Jesus was "begotten, not made" because they wanted to distinguish that whatever it is that begotten might have meant it did not mean that Jesus was made. For him to have been made would have meant one of only two things. Either Jesus was not God (which is problematic for a Christian) or there are three Gods, a tritheism. Neither of these natural conclusions of Arianism correctly encompass the scriptural view of the Trinity.
As an aside, the greek for begotten does not mean born or created or made. Monogenes is the transliteration. Mono meaning one or only and genes meaning kind. You can look it up for yourselves. It is more acurately translated as "one and only" or "one of a kind". There is none like him.
In conclusion, both men were well intentioned with their theology. God in his providence worked through the catholic body of the church to bring us to a greater and clearer understanding of himself through both men. Unfortunately for Arius his views were found incorrect. This is good for us because his views lead to all sorts of problems with the nature and divinity of Christ and undermines the very beliefs upon which our faith is built.
I think the first step in the discussion should be to look at the general history of the church. The church had struggle for four centuries with how to verbalize the complicated and somewhat mysterious concept of the Trinity and to explain the nature of God, Jesus and the Spirit. Prior to Arius and Athanasius there was also monarchism and modalism to name a couple of views. Many differing ideas were put forth over the centuries. These were gradually weeded out by a process of ellimination. The church basically said we aren't quite sure how to explain it but we know it isn't this _____ (insert view at the time).
Both men were seeking out a way to explain a view of God that seems inexplicable. This was the struggle of the whole church. How do you say you believe in one God but yet scripture shows three distinct manifestations of this one God. BTW, Arius' views were not deemed heretical until the Council of Nicea (an ecumenical council, meaning of all the church) formed their creed.
The creed states that Jesus was "begotten, not made" because they wanted to distinguish that whatever it is that begotten might have meant it did not mean that Jesus was made. For him to have been made would have meant one of only two things. Either Jesus was not God (which is problematic for a Christian) or there are three Gods, a tritheism. Neither of these natural conclusions of Arianism correctly encompass the scriptural view of the Trinity.
As an aside, the greek for begotten does not mean born or created or made. Monogenes is the transliteration. Mono meaning one or only and genes meaning kind. You can look it up for yourselves. It is more acurately translated as "one and only" or "one of a kind". There is none like him.
In conclusion, both men were well intentioned with their theology. God in his providence worked through the catholic body of the church to bring us to a greater and clearer understanding of himself through both men. Unfortunately for Arius his views were found incorrect. This is good for us because his views lead to all sorts of problems with the nature and divinity of Christ and undermines the very beliefs upon which our faith is built.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Apr 29, 2006
- 3,709
- 98
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
You changed the subject back out to the broader context, I was referring to the usage of the word substance with regards to speeches. When a speech has substance, that substance is not about the substance of the speech. And the substance of the speech may or may not have substance! And none of these substances have anything to do with consciousness or awareness, which is what ALL of my question about the Trinity revolve around.JCrawf said:
The correlation between substance and consciousness is extremely poor. What is the essence of your consciousness? Does that question have any meaning such that it can be answered? If it doesnt make sense to talk about our simple consciousness that way, how is it anymore helpful in penetrating the nature of Gods consciousness?JCrawf said:
Precisely my point, this is the only issue that really matters and yet the Trinity doctrine is useless in trying to come to any realization about it.JCrawf said:
Some sort of oneness, that is a pretty broad definition of having the same substance. It is so broad as to be meaningless because it could mean anything.JCrawf said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
