Christian Arianism

[Ragman]

Born in Alexandria in 256 A.D. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not God; not of the same substance as the Father. Although Arius gave a place of special distinction to the Son, he stopped short of granting divinity to Jesus because of his Platonic leanings that God could not be touched with the physical world, and thus utilized an intermediary to handle such things as creations and atonement. This was derived from the Platonic teachings that what was real and good was the spiritual realm and that the things of the physical world were essentially evil and not able to be touched by the divine.

To this heresy the Nicean fathers delared that the Son was homoousion to Patri (of the same substance as the Father) and by being God was the one by whom all things came into being and the One in whom all things were held together. They knew that if Jesus Christ was not God then God had not been united to mankind and mankind had not been saved. For they saw salvation as being the sharing of the divine life with humanity.

Today many conservative traditions most fervently assert their belief in the divinity of Christ, while in practical application deny its reality. For they hold that God cannot look on sin (the same error as Arianism) and that the humanity that Christ took on was not of the same nature (sin) as ours. Gregory of Nanzianzen strongly stated "the unassumed is unhealed" (Letters of Saint Gregory of Nanzianzen-To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius p. 440) of which the other early fathers concurred. Many conservative traditions today see that if the Son took on our fallen humanity that it would disqualify the legal sacrifice that Christ offered on our behalf, but fail to see that if Christ assumed any other humanity then our humanity would be unhealed. As well, many of the same traditions deny the divinity of Christ when they deny the universal reconciliation accomplished by Christ in His incarnation. They assert that all humanity fell in a mere human, Adam, but refuse to believe that all humanity has been reconciled in the Eternal Son through whom all humanity was made and in whom all humanity is held together.

This limited view of the Son, that of not reconciling all humanity and not granting full humanity to the Son is in essence a stepchild to the ancient doctrine of Arianism. For although it matters what one "states" they believe it is more important that one affirm and trust in the implications of that belief.

 

[Gideon4God]

This limited view of the Son, that of not reconciling all humanity and not granting full humanity to the Son is in essence a stepchild to the ancient doctrine of Arianism. For although it matters what one "states" they believe it is more important that one affirm and trust in the implications of that belief.

Amen.

 

[Townfriend]

Comments have been deleted ​

due to a system wide identity error ​

affecting the name Townfriend ​

that was erroneously posted throughout this website. ​

See Join Date: 24th June 2003​

 

[geocajun]

Thanks be to God that the early Christians did not limit themselves to scripture alone, or this would have devastated Christianity.
This online encyclopedia has more details about the declaration of the arian heresy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

 

[CopticOrthodox]

Adam's nature became fallen when he sinned. That nature was passed on to all his decendents, including the Virgin Mary. That is the nature that Christ took from her. One the cross He defeated the sin and death in that nature, since He is sinless, and infinite. He descended to Hades, but Satan had no power to hold Him, as He had committed no sin, and so He broke open the way to Heaven, and led the righteous from Hades to Pardise. If you haven't read St. Cyril of Alexandria's book on the Incarnation, I'm told it's incredible, and in print now. I haven't had a chance to find it yet but I want to. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're making a criticism most directly of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which seems to make it impossible for Christ to save us since then He is not assuming our fallen nature, but an unfallen nature. I would be interested to see how Catholics respond to that. However, Orthodoxy, which makes up almost 1/4 of Christianity, is one "conservative" tradition that holds a different view of Original Sin than that Catholics who follow Augustine. As such we do not believe that the Virgin was conceived without "Original sin", while we believe that she was undefiled, without committing a personal sin, by the grace of God, so that she could be a suitable vessel to bear God. Christ is like us in all things but sin. He never sinned, but the Human nature He took on was the same as ours, fallen, so that He could restore it.

 

[Outspoken]

wow..catholic docterine anyone? LOL

"For they hold that God cannot look on sin "

NO, they hold that God cannot fellowship with sin, if he couldn't look at sin then he couldn't see anything going on in the world at all. With this said the rest of your points pretty much fall apart

 

[Allen2]

Wait just a minute, Townfriend! Those of us who do not concur with the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Eucharist are NOT flirting with Arianism. We are not afraid of the physical Christ coming in contact with the physical world. WE affirm very strongly the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, that the Son of God shares the life and being of the Father and now forever shares the life and being of humanity!
What if we did not share your view on the Eucharist, because we felt the Scriptures presented a different position, without any hidden semi-Arianism agenda. Give us that much, my friend. Take time to get to really know your fellow evangelical bros...We are just as historically Orthodox as you are and committed to the early Church councils and the teachings of the Fathers (with discretion). God bless, your Non-Arian, non-Heretic, Baptist BROTHER, Al

 

[Oblio]

We are just as historically Orthodox ...

With all due respect, you are not historically Orthodox. You may consider yourself orthodox in doctrine, and as a Baptist undoubtedly are in many respects, but you are not Orthodox.

 

[Oblio]

committed to the early Church councils and the teachings of the Fathers (with discretion).

Can you show us a Council proceeding or recognized Church Father that teaches with Patristic consensus other than the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist ?

 

[Philip]

We are just as historically Orthodox as you are and committed to the early Church councils and the teachings of the Fathers (with discretion).

With discretion? What does that mean? That you pick or choose which teachings you agree with?

What teachings do you accept from the Early Fathers and Councils? I assume you are not in agreement with them on the following teachings:

• The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
• The remission of sins throught Baptism
• The importance of the portion of Holy Tradition outside of Scripture
• The Canon, in particular the Deuterocanon
• The visible unity of the Church gathered around the bishops
• The authority of the Church, especially in matters of doctrine
• The Communion of Saints
• The role of the hierarchy in the Church, especially their priestly duties
• The Theotokos's role in the Incarnation
• The title "Theotokos" (Mother of God)
• The importance works as a participation in God's grace

To my knowledge, there is no Baptist group that agrees with the Early Fathers on these matters. It seems to me that Baptists disagree with the Early Fathers on the majority of doctrines.

 

[Blackhawk]

Born in Alexandria in 256 A.D. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not God; not of the same substance as the Father. Although Arius gave a place of special distinction to the Son, he stopped short of granting divinity to Jesus because of his Platonic leanings that God could not be touched with the physical world, and thus utilized an intermediary to handle such things as creations and atonement. This was derived from the Platonic teachings that what was real and good was the spiritual realm and that the things of the physical world were essentially evil and not able to be touched by the divine.

To this heresy the Nicean fathers delared that the Son was homoousion to Patri (of the same substance as the Father) and by being God was the one by whom all things came into being and the One in whom all things were held together. They knew that if Jesus Christ was not God then God had not been united to mankind and mankind had not been saved. For they saw salvation as being the sharing of the divine life with humanity.

Today many conservative traditions most fervently assert their belief in the divinity of Christ, while in practical application deny its reality. For they hold that God cannot look on sin (the same error as Arianism) and that the humanity that Christ took on was not of the same nature (sin) as ours. Gregory of Nanzianzen strongly stated "the unassumed is unhealed" (Letters of Saint Gregory of Nanzianzen-To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius p. 440) of which the other early fathers concurred. Many conservative traditions today see that if the Son took on our fallen humanity that it would disqualify the legal sacrifice that Christ offered on our behalf, but fail to see that if Christ assumed any other humanity then our humanity would be unhealed. As well, many of the same traditions deny the divinity of Christ when they deny the universal reconciliation accomplished by Christ in His incarnation. They assert that all humanity fell in a mere human, Adam, but refuse to believe that all humanity has been reconciled in the Eternal Son through whom all humanity was made and in whom all humanity is held together.

This limited view of the Son, that of not reconciling all humanity and not granting full humanity to the Son is in essence a stepchild to the ancient doctrine of Arianism. For although it matters what one "states" they believe it is more important that one affirm and trust in the implications of that belief.

Hmmm. I did not think that the early church fathers taught that Christ had a sin nature. Maybe I should go reread them but if he did then there are major problems for he can't be a sacrifice for the sin of others when he has his own sin to die for. For the wages of sin is death. rom. 6:23.


I Jn 3:5
5 You know that He (Christ) appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
(NAU)

2 Cor 5:21
21 He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
(NAU)


Heb 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.
(NAU)

If Jesus had a sin nature then none of these scriptures are true. Christ then would know sin. Maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

Also note that as a Baptist I can say that we believe what the chruch fathers said but not all that they said. WE do not hold them up as infallible in the way the catholics do. We see them as good Christians and wise but also that they made mistakes. We are still orthodox just as much as catholics.

 

[Philip]

Hmmm. I did not think that the early church fathers taught that Christ had a sin nature. Maybe I should go reread them but if he did then there are major problems for he can't be a sacrifice for the sin of others when he has his own sin to die for. For the wages of sin is death. rom. 6:23.

St Gregory of Nazianzus:
If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.

Christ assumed every nature the we have. He did not, however, bear any guilt for that nature. It may be the Western understanding of Original Sin that is causing the difficulty.

 

[Allen2]

Hi Phillip! You raised some important issues, tho I see more agreement than otherwise:
1. "With Discretion", means that while God has spoken and continues to speak to us thru the Councils and Fathers, like the believers at Berea, we compare all pronouncements to Scripture. Is it not possible that the lengthy conclusions of the early ecumenical Councils could be improved or do you bros rule that out on principle?
2. As for the doctrines you listed, while not every Baptist would agree with me, I believe the Eucharist is more than a symbol, that Baptism is the essential expression of repentance and faith thru which our sins are forgiven, that we are to be guided by the Holy Tradition, the Holy Canon(sorry, not the Deuterocanon, tho as some of the Fathers observed they should be read for edification), the authority of the Church(or our assembly would not have with great sadness excommunicated the unrepentant), the designation of Mary as Theotokos and very definetly, works as ESSENTIAL for participation in God's grace.
3. Your Church has blessed us all and helped preserve the Apostolic Faith. See us as your brethren, saved by God's grace. Al

 

[Blackhawk]

St Gregory of Nazianzus:
If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.

Christ assumed every nature the we have. He did not, however, bear any guilt for that nature. It may be the Western understanding of Original Sin that is causing the difficulty.

CAn you post more of the context of the passage or at least where it is found so I can look it up because I do not see where he is saying that Christ assummed Adam's sin nature.

 

[Oblio]

Act 17:10-12 RSVA The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe'a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. (11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni'ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (12) Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

The Jews at Beroe'a were more noble because they received the word with all eagerness, not because they were cross checking what Paul and Silas taught them. They were not yet Christians but Jews. Christians are to be taught and led by the Church which is the pillar and foundation of all truth, through her Bishops and Elders who are appointed to rightly divide the word of truth.

 

[Philip]

CAn you post more of the context of the passage or at least where it is found so I can look it up because I do not see where he is saying that Christ assummed Adam's sin nature.

Try here. The quotation comes from the 8th paragraph (I think).

 

[Philip]

Is it not possible that the lengthy conclusions of the early ecumenical Councils could be improved or do you bros rule that out on principle?

We believe the Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit. What could need improving?

 

[Allen2]

Hi Phillip: re Church Councils.
a. Of course the Lord guided His people both in and out of Councils, but there is no support for the idea that such guidance ruled out the possibility of error or statements that could be improved.
b. You appear to treat Tradition as infallible as the Word. Why? and Why would such a thing be necessary? When I hear a Spirit-filled preacher proclaiming God's Word, I submit my hear to God to hear Him speak and I use my God -given mind to evaluate what I hear and whether it is correct. So let me get this straight: You believe that the teachings of the Ecumenical Church Councils were without error and can never be subject to ANY improvement? Al

 

[Philip]

Hi Phillip: re Church Councils.
a. Of course the Lord guided His people both in and out of Councils, but there is no support for the idea that such guidance ruled out the possibility of error or statements that could be improved.

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit inspired some error? Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. St Paul called the Church the Pillar and Support of Truth. The Early Fathers all speak of the authority and purity of the Church. The Councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are infallible.

b. You appear to treat Tradition as infallible as the Word. Why? and Why would such a thing be necessary?

Scripture is part of Tradition. St Paul commanded us to observe all of the Traditions he taught, whether in word or epsitle. Scripture itself tells us that it does not contain the entire revelation of God. Why would such a thing be necessary? You'll have to ask Christ. He established a Church to preserve His teachings. If it is the writen word alone that is important, why is their no record of Christ commanding the Apostles to write?

BTW, without Sacred Tradition, how do you identify Scripture? How do you know which books are inspired and which aren't? This is really a topic for another thread, but the simple fact is that it is not possible to teach that the collection of books in the Bible is infallible unless you agree that the Tradition which assembled them is also infallible.

You believe that the teachings of the Ecumenical Church Councils were without error and can never be subject to ANY improvement?

With all my heart. The Ecumenical Councils are the product of inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They are without error. They have no need for improvement. That being said, can we return to original topic?

 

[Allen2]

Hey there:
I don't follow your logic. I agree that the early church (apostolic, post-apostolic) was guided by the Holy Spirit. What does that have to do with infallibility? Does it even imply infallibility?
There are several issues dealt with in the early Church Councils where I believe there discussions could be improved and several matters that show the influence of Platonism on their understanding of God. I believe there is always new light ready to break forth from God's Word and we must be humbly willingly to rethink and restate our understanding of vital Biblical doctrine. As a Protestant I am willing to do just that; eg., our view of Justification was overly forensic or legal--due to the influence of our Orthodox bros we may be improving the way we describe Justification. I also would hope that the evangelicals have something to contribute to your Church. God bless, Al