Athanasius vs. Arius: Were they holy men or politicans?

[mike1reynolds]

Are you aware that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians during these few decades then throughout all the centuries of Roman persecutions combined? I can’t remember whether it was Arius or Athanasias, but one of them was finally killed by an angry lynch mob. The whole scene was one of the bloodiest blood baths in history, prior to the world wars. You put a lot of faith in this murderous process even though it didn’t seem to settle much of anything theologically. What makes you think that the men behind this proxy warfare were men of profound spiritual insight rather than simply greedy politicians?

I think you should make a new thread about this, like OUSA suggests. These are very exaggerated statements you have there, plus I think you will find inaccurate. Arius died of extreme hemorrage in front of people, he was not killed by an angry mob.

I haven’t read up on it recently so my memory could well be fuzzy, since there were an awful lot of angry mobs running around then. The Emperor even gave his approval to acts of vigilantism, that is how the library of Alexandria was destroyed, which was a huge loss to the world and the subject of recorded history.

I would also suggest reading the Life of St. Anthony, father of monasticism, who was a spiritual father of St. Athanasius. He had foressen the struggles with Arianism and the triumph of the Church over the heresy.

I don’t see much of a meaningful distinction between Arias and Athanasius – same substance, similar substance, different substance, it all revolves around adjectives to the word substance. How does substance apply to consciousness?

The term substance is utterly and completely ambiguous, it could mean almost anything. Since it can mean almost anything, I don’t see how any kind of modifying adjective makes much of a difference to an already very ambiguous term. The result is a total profusion of utterly inconsistent beliefs, no two are exactly alike unless they are simply parroting the theological formula with no thought (which is the norm since no one seems to have coherent thoughts on the subject). When probing people for the meaning of this people end up saying contradictory things about the personhood vs. the separate awareness and being of the members of the trinity. The questions posed are extremely simple but all of the answers that I’ve seen that are derived from settling the conflict between these two men are complex, self-contradictory statements that just don’t make any sense to me.

So my point is that, maybe the lack of theological profundity and consistency that I see in these thoughts comes from the time in which those thoughts were formulated. In the 4th century they destroyed 90% of the material on Jesus and murdered each other in vast numbers, so is it so surprising that their theology was not the most penetrating and insightful?

 

[OnTheWay]

Arius was a heritic.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Arius was a heritic.

It wasn’t heresy before it was declared heresy. For nearly a century the pendulum swung back and forth between Arius and Athanasius until the Athanasians finally won. At the end of their lifetimes it appeared that Arius and not Athanasius had been the final victor.

So how do their beliefs differ? In order to be heretical something has to be meaningfully different from the orthodox stance, but I don’t see any practical distinction here. What changes if God and Jesus are of the same, similar or different substance? How do any of these beliefs lead to a different conclusion than the other ones?

 

[a_ntv]

...So my point is that, maybe the lack of theological profundity and consistency that I see in these thoughts comes from the time in which those thoughts were formulated. In the 4th century they destroyed 90% of the material on Jesus and murdered each other in vast numbers, so is it so surprising that their theology was not the most penetrating and insightful?

So, why do you accept the theology of St Athanasius ?:
- the canon of NT (http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml)
- the creed of Nicea (the two things are strictly tied)

JWs ad instance do not. That is a choice, IMO wrong, but to be respected.

...In the 4th century they destroyed 90% of the material on Jesus ...

Please prove it.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Please prove it.

I’m referring to things like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi scrolls. The early Church did a halfway decent job of describing the many books they destroyed and the mass executions associated with this. I wasn’t aware that there was any controversy over this, only over the nature of that extremely large quantity of material, much larger than in the canon, that was destroyed. The gospels are hardly more than a pamphlet, no other religion has such a skimpy thread-bear narrative of their central figure’s life. That is because after they got done destroying the vast majority of it, there was very little left.

 

[Bradford]

What changes if God and Jesus are of the same, similar or different substance? How do any of these beliefs lead to a different conclusion than the other ones?

Umm... the whole "One in substance with the Father" part of the Creed, for starters. And if Jesus is not of the same substance as the Father, then of course that changes the unity of Christ's natures in one person.

So the hypostatic union is gone. Now, when Christ died on teh Cross, what died? Man only? God only? Is Christ even the preexistant Son, or is He now a creation made before the world was? See what kind of mess this leads to? Christianity is a "house of cards", so to speak, in that even though a heresy may seem very minor, it strikes down many different doctrines, and leads to many more adverse heresies. And before long, the whole structure doesn't exist anymore.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Umm... the whole "One in substance with the Father" part of the Creed, for starters. And if Jesus is not of the same substance as the Father, then of course that changes the unity of Christ's natures in one person.

So the hypostatic union is gone. Now, when Christ died on teh Cross, what died? Man only? God only? Is Christ even the preexistant Son, or is He now a creation made before the world was? See what kind of mess this leads to? Christianity is a "house of cards", so to speak, in that even though a heresy may seem very minor, it strikes down many different doctrines, and leads to many more adverse heresies. And before long, the whole structure doesn't exist anymore.

I don't see how any of these ideas are expressed by one of these points of view and not the other two? It seems to me that any of these arguments could be made just as readily from any of the three starting points.

 

[TruthMiner]

As you can see by the above poll people only choose what suits them despite the facts.

If you read your history carefully and without bias, you certainly get a different picture than what popular history tells you.

Arius was on his way to church one day to have communion where the Athansians held church. Constantine commanded this to happen to bring unity to the church. The Athanasians didn't like it. Arius died very suspiciously on his way.. his guts blew out. His followers claimed he was poisoned. Guess who got to write the history on how he died? Yep, the fox in the henhouse - Athanasius.

Athanasius also taught, "God became man so men might become gods" He was also exiled FIVE times. Arius, only once and Constantine realized he was wrong about Arius recalled him from exile and banished Athanasius. They didn't tell you this did they?

Two thieves fighting in the street.

 

[Oblio]

So TMiner, you side with a heretic , Arius, a proto-JW ?

 

[Oblio]

Anyone else besides me notice all the attacks on orthodox Christianity on the feastday of the Holy Fathers of the first 6 Ecumenical councils.

 

[TruthMiner]

So TMiner, you side with a heretic , Arius, a proto-JW ?

No I side with the truth.

Just can't imagine a non-Arian being sympathetic to Arius can you?

Athanasius was a corrupt man, just as corrupt, if not more than Arius.

 

[mike1reynolds]

I thought one of them was assassinated by the other group... It certainly doesn’t say much for the theological correctness of the group doing the assassination.

There are only 4 votes so far and only for the extreme view points, even though there have been almost 50 views. So the voting is not unlike it was originally in the council of Nicea. Most of the council members were on the fence and had no strong view one way or the other outside of the group of supporters around Athanasius and Arius. Most council members had no strong opinion about it, but they had to vote on a single point of view and it was rather arbitrary to most of them which one they chose. It was certainly arbitrary to Constantine who later changed his mind and reversed his support.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Anyone else besides me notice all the attacks on orthodox Christianity on the feastday of the Holy Fathers of the first 6 Ecumenical councils.

I wouldn't call this an attack on orthodoxy for two reasons. First, it is not an issue which any Reformation or Protestant reformer took on so it doesn’t target orthodoxy anymore than any other kind of Christianity. All mainstream Christian denominations abide by the choices that were made in the 4th century, even if those choices were made for purely political reasons.

Secondly, I am quite fond of Catholicism in a number of ways and prefer it over most Protestant denominations other than my own. I can’t speak to Orthodox Christianity, but it seems to me that the Roman Church gave the Orthodox Church the same treatment around 1000 AD when it was sacked by the Crusaders. So at various times I agree and disagree with orthodoxy, and at times orthodoxy can’t agree with itself.

 

[Bradford]

I wouldn't call this an attack on orthodoxy for two reasons. First, it is not an issue which any Reformation or Protestant reformer took on so it doesn’t target orthodoxy anymore than any other kind of Christianity. All mainstream Christian denominations abide by the choices that were made in the 4th century, even if those choices were made for purely political reasons.

Secondly, I am quite fond of Catholicism in a number of ways and prefer it over most Protestant denominations other than my own. I can’t speak to Orthodox Christianity, but it seems to me that the Roman Church gave the Orthodox Church the same treatment around 1000 AD when it was sacked by the Crusaders. So at various times I agree and disagree with orthodoxy, and at times orthodoxy can’t agree with itself.

Umm... orthodox, not Orthodox.

Oblio didn't mean the Orthodox Church... he meant orthodox, as in correct views on the Trinity. And the only people you're going to find agreeing with Arius are the psuedo-Christian heretics- the JW's, the Mormons, etc. Old heresies never die, they are only re-branded and sold back to the world.

 

[mike1reynolds]

And the only people you're going to find agreeing with Arius are the psuedo-Christian heretics- the JW's, the Mormons, etc.

That is of no relevance to me since I am equally as critical of Arius as of Athansius. In every case in the poll I made the bias against Arius, except for the last option where they are both equated equally.

Old heresies never die, they are only re-branded and sold back to the world.

My objection is to what I think is distorted wording that is internally inconsistent, not the underlying existence of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. All three views are just as guilty in this regard, Arianism was no better than the other two.

 

[OnTheWay]

It wasn’t heresy before it was declared heresy. For nearly a century the pendulum swung back and forth between Arius and Athanasius until the Athanasians finally won. At the end of their lifetimes it appeared that Arius and not Athanasius had been the final victor.

So how do their beliefs differ? In order to be heretical something has to be meaningfully different from the orthodox stance, but I don’t see any practical distinction here. What changes if God and Jesus are of the same, similar or different substance? How do any of these beliefs lead to a different conclusion than the other ones?

The divinity of Christ is centeral to Christianity. If the heretic, and heresy is heresy regardless of how long it takes it to be officially declared so, had won then Christianity would have shifted from Orthodoxy into gnositicism. It's interesting that groups that are so unorthodox they aren't even Christian, like Mormons and JW's, adhear to Arius' views.

 

[mike1reynolds]

The divinity of Christ is centeral to Christianity.

As I understand it Arius made certain qualifications about the divinity of Christ but he did not deny the divinity of Christ. I would be EXTREMELY shocked if Mormons or JWs denied the divinity of Christ, even if they are Arian.

If the heretic, and heresy is heresy regardless of how long it takes it to be officially declared so, had won then Christianity would have shifted from Orthodoxy into gnositicism.

I don’t see how varying the adjective to the word substance makes one view Gnostic and another one not Gnostic? I see no practical distinction at all between the different definitions, none of them deny that Christ is divine. When you get away from the meaningless abstractions none of the different expressions of belief really describe anything meaningfully or practically different that I can see. If I am wrong then anyone is welcome to show me the first example of a practical difference?

 

[gitlance]

Arius was a heretic.

 

[a_ntv]

As I understand it Arius made certain qualifications about the divinity of Christ but he did not deny the divinity of Christ. I would be EXTREMELY shocked if Mormons or JWs denied the divinity of Christ, even if they are Arian.

Well, Arius simply did not stated that Christ is True God.

He stated that Christ was a God, but a God of a minor level than the Father. He believed that Christ has been created by the Father.
That is exactly the believe of JWs.

We believe not only in the divity of Christ, but in the Full and True divinity of Christ, who was begotten and not created. We believe that the True Divinity existed before the Incarnation, during Jesus life, at Jesus death, in the Resurection and after the Risen.

 

[TruthMiner]

The history you were all brainwashed to believe:

Arius... a demonic heretic, a father of lies, a plotter and conspirator, the worst of the human race.
KEY WORDS TO REMEMBER: Bad, evil, liar, heretic

Athanasius... a gentile and harmless holy man frolicking through the tulips praising God.
KEY WORDS TO REMEMBER: good, holy, lover of truth, orthodox


Yeah right. Let's all believe in Santa too. Such a picture of this history is not even close to the facts but are wishful fantasies.