Wrangler
Well-known member
Where did you get this idea from?
The continued spread of the Arian Heresy (that Jesus is not God) in JW and Unitarian Churches.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
Wrangler
Well-known member
Funny. Falsely equating non-Christians to Arians.
Nope. If your ""Appeal to Majority" statement was true, we would have been sentenced to being forever Arians.
Instead, many reasonably came to the conclusion, through Biblical revelation, that Jesus is God. Unitarians don't seem to be willing or able to go down that route. Why?
Look up Muhammad's encounter with the heretical monk called Bahira.
They're still Arians. Or are you going to deny that fact?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Clearly, you do not understand. There is a difference between issuing a statement that a majority of attendees signed on to compared to committing a logical fallacy. The first is based on the principle of democracy, of majority rule. The second is attributing something as being correct because a majority go along with it.
Excluding the majority of legitimate attendees to force a statement that actually goes against the majority is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of majority. I understand the King of England became head of the Church of England this way. So to was the Nicea Creed. Corrupt politics flowing from corrupt doctrine.
One poster here stated that salvation does not depend on believing the trinity. Is that your position also?
You still do not understand. The majority of Bishops were Arian committed or leaning at the start of the Council. At that point, had you taken a democratic vote, the Arians would have easily won. So your "Appeal to Majority" accusation rings false.
Instead, many Bishops were reasonably persuaded, through Biblical revelation and the tireless work of Saint Athanasius, that Jesus is God. Unitarians don't seem to be willing or able to go down that route. Why?
The fact that the Trinitarian majority won in the end is just a by-product of Saint Athanasius' tireless work and the Grace of God.
By the way, how's your container/contents 2 persons schizophrenic belief working out for you?
On battling Arianism: then and now.
by Dr. Matthew E. BunsonThe Church has confronted a dazzling and depressing number of heresies in her long history – Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Jansenism, to name just a few – and one that for a time seemed on the verge of establishing its dark ascendancy over Christianity was Arianism.
At its heart, Arianism proposed that the Son of God was not eternal but was created by the Father from nothing. Christ was thus a changeable creature, his dignity bestowed upon him as Son of God.
The heresy was condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325 thanks in large measure to the heroic stand by St. Athanasius of Alexandria. But by the cunning of its supporters, it was rehabilitated and forced upon the common faithful by heretical Roman emperors and their ecclesiastical minions. As St. Jerome wrote during the crisis, the world “awoke with a groan to find itself Arian.”
Arianism was finally defeated in 381 at the Council of Constantinople through the unflagging labors of several Fathers and Doctors of the Church, including St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that heresy – especially the Arian heresy – is a relic of the past that cannot happen again. In fact, we are seeing a resurgence of it today. The great historian and Catholic apologist Hilaire Belloc once observed, “As all heresies necessarily breathe the air of the time in which they arise, and are necessarily a reflection of the philosophy of whatever non-Catholic ideas are prevalent at that moment they arise, Arianism spoke in the terms of its day.”
And our times are a most fertile environment for a kind of NeoArianism. Original Arianism taught that Jesus was a mere creature, while today’s version exists in a therapeutic, materialistic, and secularizing culture that also rejects a Jesus Who is the Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. Instead, He is a revolutionary who called for Marxist liberation against existing power structures, or He is a kind of guru or teacher who encourages us toward a journey of spiritual exploration that demands neither repentance nor even an awareness of sin. If He was divine at all it is because He was able to “self-actualize his divine potential,” and He most certainly never intended to establish a Church, because after all, since we are more spiritual than religious we don’t need a Church to limit our freedom with rules and judgement.
Neo-Arians are found in great numbers today even in the Church. As Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote several years ago in the National Catholic Register, “The difference between Arius and the modern heretics is that Arius was actually explicit in his teaching. The modern heretics are not. They inhabit our seminaries, our monasteries, our rectories and presbyteries. They are the modernist clergy who dominate the mainstream Protestant denominations and who are too many in number within the Catholic Church as well.”
What is the antidote?
It is the same as it was in the 4th century. We begin by deepening our own knowledge of the Faith, by proclaiming Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. It is also vital to be willing to speak with clarity but with charity with our families, friends, and those we meet about what the Church actually teaches and asks us to believe. In a society where even the words “truth,” “Christ,” “judgment,” “sin,” and “authority” can trigger hostile responses, we should also be prepared to face criticism, ostracism, mockery, and one day soon perhaps persecution for identifying them. Athanasius faced the same challenges and endured five exiles from his beloved Alexandria for speaking out. He was willing to stand against the whole world, and though in the end the true faith triumphed, it came at a high price for him and many others. We are asked to speak and to live the truth. Are we also willing to pay the price?
Source: https://legatus.org/news/on-battling-arianism-then-and-now
Wrangler
Well-known member
Not really an answer to my question.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Yes. Arians are a type of Christian, not a type of non-Christian.
Wrangler
Well-known member
With all due respect, this is revisionist history to deny these Arian Bishops were even in attendance.
Simply put, the trinity is not in the Bible now and it was not in the Bible then - not the word and not the concept. I repeat, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once! What is missing from Scripture is just as telling as what is explicitly taught.
No eloquent trinitarian eisegesis is going to change the basic fact. Jesus did not teach the trinity. Why do you?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Of course, the political victor would claim that. It had a little to do with a Roman Emperor fighting to keep the empire from collapsing and could not tolerate ANY idea of disunity and used his absolute power to the defeat of the Arians. I've got a great book recommendation for you, if you are interested.
Wrangler
Well-known member
It works great for simply explaining Scripture verses that say God or God's Spirit dwelt in Jesus. You?
Even after the Council decision was ratified, Saint Athanasius was exiled and hunted by the subsequent Emporers multiple times. It was the norm back then for Emporers to banish people who were thought to be disruptive of empire unity. Empire unity at all cost. That was a two edged sword for both sides. We have socially evolved since then and are more civilized these days. Those days of enforced religiosity are long gone. The Christian martyrs of the first 300 years had to learn to forgive and so do we.
Multiple Personality Disorder: A mental health condition, people with dissociative identity disorder (DID) have two or more separate personalities. These identities control a person's behavior at different times.
I'll stick with the Biblical Jesus who is the one Word of God Person and therefore does not suffer from a Multiple Personality Disorder.
There are no container/contents verse either so we're in the same boat. We shouldn't just throw up our hands and give up. We need to think things through based on what the Bible does reveal. For example, see what I wrote below concerning our salvation and Christ's Divinity.
The Bible declares that it's Jesus who saves so it is vital that we worship the true Jesus if we are ever to be saved.
When Jesus declared that He is the "I Am" who exists before Abraham and many other titles that denote Divinity, like Son of Man, then it is incumbent on us to worship Him as the Great "I Am".
Wrangler
Well-known member
I never claimed there were container/contents verses. What I claimed is a simple unitarian explanation for why God dwells in Christ.
Too bad your view has 2 persons (the Word of God person and the Jesus person) in one body. Your Unitarian Jesus suffers from an officially classified health disorder called the Multiple Personality Disorder.
I'll stick with the Biblical Jesus who is the one Word of God Person and therefore does not suffer from a Multiple Personality Disorder.
Wrangler
Well-known member
That’s not my view at all. A persons word is not another person.
Wrangler
Well-known member
What verse says this? None.
