Arianism

[ajcstr]

With the little I have read about Arianism it seems as though at one point the movement had quite a lot of followers in the East including many Bishops. I was wondering if its followers disputed the Gospel of John.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

What particularly in the Gospel of John would they have had a problem with?

The Arians… the first heretics… did not believe fully in the divinity of Jesus. Basically they were motivated by common sense… because common sense does not lend itself to the Trinity. Logically God the Father and His son Jesus Christ cannot be the same God… Arius posited that Christ was therefore subservient or lesser in his relationship to God the Father.

This is a logical understanding of when Jesus prays to God the Father in the garden of Gethsemene. This is always hard for us to understand because of the mystery of the Trinity.

St. Athanasius got the Council of Nicea to almost unanimously reject Arianism [Only 2 Bishops including Arius dissented]. The Athanasian Creed is a pretty solid rebuke of Arianism and it makes the Church’s teachings on the Trinity ABUNDANTLY ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

 

[fhansen]

With the little I have read about Arianism it seems as though at one point the movement had quite a lot of followers in the East including many Bishops. I was wondering if its followers disputed the Gospel of John.

Like John 14:28?:
28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I*

This is a verse Arians used and JWs use today to deny the divinity of Jesus. Likewise there are plenty of verses from John and elsewhere that support Jesus’ divinity, quite conclusively, IMO. But the point is that scripture can often be interpreted many ways, and cannot be relied on as a dependable authority by itself for understanding the gospel; the Church was given just that authority.

 

[ajcstr]

What particularly in the Gospel of John would they have had a problem with?

I was thinking John 1:1

I know the Council of Nicea and the determination of the canon were happening around the same time and was wondering if Arians would have accepted the Gospel of John.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Semper Zelare:

The Arians… the first heretics… did not believe fully in the divinity of Jesus.

Actually Cerinthus may be the first heretic to deny the Divinity of Jesus. He is specifically being aimed at by St. John the Evangelist in his Gospel. So even the Apostles themselves were fighting heresies. St. James is obviously fighting against the Faith alone heresy. St. Paul is fighting against the Judaizers. Most of our current heresies are just old repackaged heresies.

 

[gus]

I don’t think is was so much a rejection as a re interpretation
Its Christology is much like the JWs
Christ was the first of all created beings.
JW use a modified Gospel of John
they carry bibles wereever they go.
The written word is easily modified.
Although rejected by Nicea it lingered for years.
Its durabilty was due to the military success of their converts. The. Germanic tribes that destroyed the Western Empire

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I was thinking John 1:1

I know the Council of Nicea and the determination of the canon were happening around the same time and was wondering if Arians would have accepted the Gospel of John.

I imagine what gus posted is the answer to this.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are modern day Arians. The Arians likely would have wanted to change the Gospel of John, and carry around a different Bible. With all the verses that could theologically shoot them down removed or changed.

 

[beehumble]

St. Athanasius got the Council of Nicea to almost unanimously reject Arianism [Only 2 Bishops including Arius dissented]. The Athanasian Creed is a pretty solid rebuke of Arianism and it makes the Church’s teachings on the Trinity ABUNDANTLY ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

That’s the council where Santa Claus supposedly popped Arius or something.

google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=sanat+claus+punched+arius&oq=sanat+claus+punched+arius&gs_l=hp.3…1177.6213.0.6515.25.20.0.0.0.2.1329.6307.0j8j4j3j2j0j1j1.19.0.les%3B…0.0…1c.1.E7He0G2qHxY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=fcff299af63d19f1&biw=1366&bih=664

God bless you.

 

[ajcstr]

Jehovah’s Witnesses are modern day Arians.

I think that is an insult to the Arians if you read the history of the JW. Even though Arianism was declared a heresy, I think that at that time this was a legitimate question, “Was Jesus equal to God?” that needed to be worked out by the early Church.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

That’s the council where Santa Claus supposedly popped Arius or something.

google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=sanat+claus+punched+arius&oq=sanat+claus+punched+arius&gs_l=hp.3…1177.6213.0.6515.25.20.0.0.0.2.1329.6307.0j8j4j3j2j0j1j1.19.0.les%3B…0.0…1c.1.E7He0G2qHxY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=fcff299af63d19f1&biw=1366&bih=664

God bless you.

Yes, that is indeed the council where Santa Claus punched Arius in the face.

Here is Michael Voris telling that story very vividly:
youtube.com/watch?v=jsstRycYwiQ

ajcstr:

I think that is an insult to the Arians if you read the history of the JW. Even though Arianism was declared a heresy, I think that at that time this was a legitimate question, “Was Jesus equal to God?” that needed to be worked out by the early Church.

Well I don’t want to insult anybody. I have a Catholic Apologetics booklet on JW’s, and it refers to them numerous times as modern-day Arians. Of course they believe a lot of different things as well. But they do subscribe to the basic Arian view when it comes to the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

One fact about the Arius debate that does not get a lot of mention is the Secular political climate in the Roman world that led up to it. From my investigations this sheds considrable light on the rise of Ariunism befor ,during and after the council of Nicea.
In brief after nearly 100 years of turmoil when the Empire went through 22 Emprors or there abouts Diocleacin consolidated the empire into his hands, appointed Augustus as Ceaser of the west and these two had a deputy each Constantines farther in the West and Garulius in the East in about the year 285 or there abouts it came to Garulius’s attention that the Christians in his legions would not take part in a particular Oath swearing to the Emporar, upon closer examination it was soon realised that about 12%-15% of the empire identified as Christian this was of real concern because with the boarders of the empire being continualy threatened from with out by Barbarians if the Christians became millitant and armed themselves they could potentialy toppel the empire from with in.
At first Diocleation went for a consilatory approach over about a 8-10 year period this approach included bringing Christ into the Panthion of pagan gods the reasoning was that Paganism was also Monothiest with One Major God and many Minor Gods the Greeks called thier Major God Zeus, the Romans Appollo and all the other gods were just reflections of this Major God. His reasoning was that the Christians were free to call thier Major God the Farther and thier Minor god Christ and that this fitted in well with all other good citizens of the empire and should not hamper them in doing thier civic duties.
Of course this did not go down well with Christians and led to what is called the last persicutions where christians were massercerd and treated terribly especialy in the east it would appear to me that one way to stop this terrible blood shed was to give the Romans what they wanted and at the same time get vast numbers of christians on board by using orthodox language to do so.
Arius weather or not for self serving reasons to ingratiate himself with the authoroties did this and it would appear gave a lot of people a way out of a terrible situation and hence very quickly gained a support it should never have had.
Arianism lived on after nicea under the rule of constantines son because dont forget once christ is made just another creature worship of creatures such as emprors is not far behind.

 

[Nicea325]

Like John 14:28?:
28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I*

This is a verse Arians used and JWs use today to deny the divinity of Jesus. Likewise there are plenty of verses from John and elsewhere that support Jesus’ divinity, quite conclusively, IMO. But the point is that scripture can often be interpreted many ways, and cannot be relied on as a dependable authority by itself for understanding the gospel; the Church was given just that authority.

But the error JW’s and the Arians is the fact Jesus wasn’t referring to his substance with his Father;moreover, Jesus is simply making a reference to doing his Father’s will.

 

[ajcstr]

Well I don’t want to insult anybody. I have a Catholic Apologetics booklet on JW’s, and it refers to them numerous times as modern-day Arians. Of course they believe a lot of different things as well. But they do subscribe to the basic Arian view when it comes to the divinity of Jesus.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply it that way. I just think the JW go way beyond what the Arians were arguing.

 

[Hunter24]

With the little I have read about Arianism it seems as though at one point the movement had quite a lot of followers in the East including many Bishops. I was wondering if its followers disputed the Gospel of John.

Most of the German tribes who invaded the Western Roman Empire were converted to Arianism from their traditional beliefs once they crossed the boarder, especialy the Goths and Vandals. The Vandals established an Arian kingdom in north Africa sfter they captured Carthage, but were wiped out by the Byzantines later.

 

[Cavaradossi]

With the little I have read about Arianism it seems as though at one point the movement had quite a lot of followers in the East including many Bishops. I was wondering if its followers disputed the Gospel of John.

I don’t think so. The Arians typically would have said that the Word being God was not meant in the same sense that one would say the Father is God. Later generations of Arians, like Eunomius, would argue that the essence of God was ingeneracy, and therefore, the Word, while being called ‘God’, was only still the ‘generate God’, inferior in essence to the Unbegotten and Ingenerate God. They did not dispute the authority of the Gospel of John (I think they saw the major problems in doing so), preferring to twist its meaning instead.

 

[Hunter24]

One fact about the Arius debate that does not get a lot of mention is the Secular political climate in the Roman world that led up to it. From my investigations this sheds considrable light on the rise of Ariunism befor ,during and after the council of Nicea.
In brief after nearly 100 years of turmoil when the Empire went through 22 Emprors or there abouts Diocleacin consolidated the empire into his hands, appointed Augustus as Ceaser of the west and these two had a deputy each Constantines farther in the West and Garulius in the East in about the year 285 or there abouts it came to Garulius’s attention that the Christians in his legions would not take part in a particular Oath swearing to the Emporar, upon closer examination it was soon realised that about 12%-15% of the empire identified as Christian this was of real concern because with the boarders of the empire being continualy threatened from with out by Barbarians if the Christians became millitant and armed themselves they could potentialy toppel the empire from with in.
At first Diocleation went for a consilatory approach over about a 8-10 year period this approach included bringing Christ into the Panthion of pagan gods the reasoning was that Paganism was also Monothiest with One Major God and many Minor Gods the Greeks called thier Major God Zeus, the Romans Appollo and all the other gods were just reflections of this Major God. His reasoning was that the Christians were free to call thier Major God the Farther and thier Minor god Christ and that this fitted in well with all other good citizens of the empire and should not hamper them in doing thier civic duties.
Of course this did not go down well with Christians and led to what is called the last persicutions where christians were massercerd and treated terribly especialy in the east it would appear to me that one way to stop this terrible blood shed was to give the Romans what they wanted and at the same time get vast numbers of christians on board by using orthodox language to do so.
Arius weather or not for self serving reasons to ingratiate himself with the authoroties did this and it would appear gave a lot of people a way out of a terrible situation and hence very quickly gained a support it should never have had.
Arianism lived on after nicea under the rule of constantines son because dont forget once christ is made just another creature worship of creatures such as emprors is not far behind.

im sorry but that is a horribly incorrect description of Greco-Roman religion.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

im sorry but that is a horribly incorrect description of Greco-Roman religion.

This was not ment to be a description of Greco-Roman religion, Just a brief look at a ticky problem for the then new Roman empror of the time and how he tried to solve it befor resorting to persecution of his citizens

 

[Hunter24]

This was not ment to be a description of Greco-Roman religion, Just a brief look at a ticky problem for the then new Roman empror of the time and how he tried to solve it befor resorting to persecution of his citizens

excuse me, “this is a horribly inaccurate post”. 12-15 percent of the roman empire wasnt Christian untill after the Edict of Milan, and Christians were persecuted for not making sacrifices to the Emperor. Later they simply became a scape goat, a minority to blame for problems and persecute to rally support for some political cause or another. once Christians had fully diverged from Judeism it was no longer protected by the roman laws giving Jews special religiouse freedoms.

however you are correct, on the later portion of your post about Arius and Arian Christianities wider acceptability.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

excuse me, “this is a horribly inaccurate post”. 12-15 percent of the roman empire wasnt Christian untill after the Edict of Milan, and Christians were persecuted for not making sacrifices to the Emperor. Later they simply became a scape goat, a minority to blame for problems and persecute to rally support for some political cause or another. once Christians had fully diverged from Judeism it was no longer protected by the roman laws giving Jews special religiouse freedoms.

however you are correct, on the later portion of your post about Arius and Arian Christianities wider acceptability.

Not that inaccurate. the edict of millan was in 313 so from 285-90 we are only talking 25 years. and the edict of Milan was a result of these persicutions, huge cival unrest which basicly ended in Constantines victory over Augustsus. I am glad this post has gotten some interest I will post some Authors to shed more light on this.
The point of my post was that the rise of Arianism was not only from with in the Church, there were also preasures from the political and social enviroment of that particular time.
Also to point out That Diocletion did try a concilatory approach at first to bring Christ into the pantheon of pagan gods before begining the last wide spread persecutions known as the Age of Martyrs. And that this must have been a contributing factor to the rise of Arianism.

 

[Hunter24]

Not that inaccurate. the edict of millan was in 313 so from 285-90 we are only talking 25 years. and the edict of Milan was a result of these persicutions, huge cival unrest which basicly ended in Constantines victory over Augustsus. I am glad this post has gotten some interest I will post some Authors to shed more light on this.
The point of my post was that the rise of Arianism was not only from with in the Church, there were also preasures from the political and social enviroment of that particular time.
Also to point out That Diocletion did try a concilatory approach at first to bring Christ into the pantheon of pagan gods before begining the last wide spread persecutions known as the Age of Martyrs. And that this must have been a contributing factor to the rise of Arianism.

Your correct on the political motivations of the Arian movement, although the Edict of Milan had nothing to do with Christian unrest and everything to do with Constantine believing the Christian god had aided, along with other gods, in his victory. Constantine gave sacrifice to 4 different Roman gods after his victory, and didnt become Christian until he lay on his death bed. still though, the point of this post is on target, there were alot of political motives for the Arians.