Are we arians?

[Zyxl]

Btw, we have a Discord server where we discuss theological matters pertaining to the Trinity. Anyone is welcome to join so long as they are well-behaved. We have quite a variety of views represented: https://discord.gg/WC45JKc

 

[Macabeus]

@Macabeus I'm not sure why you keep focusing on the incarnation and using it to cover for the fact Jesus is over presented as less great or less authoritative as the Father. I specifically mentioned stuff which applies to Jesus before the incarnation and after His ascension, so I don't see how the incarnation is a valid excuses for the points which I brought up and you have yet to address.

Also, it seems that you impose a number of extra-biblical assumptions on the holy scriptures which taint your interpretation. For example, scripture does not say that Jesus has two natures (though it says He is a man and He is our God, it does not use natures or metaphysics to describe this), or that He possesses all the "divine attributes" (whatever those are). Nor does scripture say that the three persons are one being, or even one God. And it doesn't follow that something which is called theos/elohim is the one true God, because angels, kings, and even Satan are referred to in that way.

Now there is one argument of substance that I think deserves responding to, and one which I need to spend more time studying in the word of God:

I take it you are referring to Isaiah 44:24:


Notice that the pronouns are singular: e.g. "I" and "myself". In the Hebrew for the verse you also have singular verbs. This shows that a single person is speaking here. For example, when Jesus refers to Himself and the Father together He says "we" and "our", not "I" and "my":

Moreover, I'm not aware of any clear instance in scripture where singular pronouns are to refer to multiple persons at once. One would need some good evidence to think singular pronouns can refer to a multiple persons at once in order for it to even be plausible to interpret Isaiah 44:24 as referring to both the Father and the Son. And even if you think singular pronouns could refer to a multi-personal being (whatever that means exactly), you would have to admit it is at least slightly odd that singular pronouns are used with regard to the Creator in Isaiah 44:24, but in Gen 1:27 we have a plural pronoun used.

So how then are we to reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with the fact that both the Father and the Son were active in creation? Well, first we can look at the context of the verse and see that the LORD is setting Himself against idols, and hence it would seem that His primary purpose in 44:24 is to dispel any notion that any of the idols of the people created anything. That's why He says He made "all things", leaving no room for the false gods to have made anything on their own. Moreover, His saying that He "alone stretched out the heavens" and "spread out the earth by myself" could be understood as saying that He did it without any involvement from the false gods that the people of Israel were turning to and making for themselves.

Alternatively, one could make a distinction between different roles in creation. We see in the NT that from the Father are all things, and through the Son are all things (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Cor 11:12 (notice that 'God' here means the Father as usual and as in verse 3), Col 1:16, John 1:3). Hence one could say that from the Father alone (and by Himself) are all things. Also, the picture I get from Hebrews 1:2 is that the Father is the Creator in the most proper sense, with the Son being the instrument of creation who was used *by the Father*. That would seem to be why it says "through whom [Jesus] also he [the Father] created the world" (ESV, but the point holds in other formal translations). Moreover, Jesus Himself refers to the creation as being "God's [the Father's] creation" in Rev 3:14.

Such a distinction may seem contrived, but I think scripture often speaks in such a way, for example when Jesus said that the Father judges no-one at the final judgement:

yet we see that the Father is also said to judge at the final judgement (John 8:50, John 5:45, Rom 2:16). The way scripture explains this is that "God judges . . . through Christ Jesus"; the Father is the ultimate judge, whereas Jesus is the immediate judge who judges on behalf of the Father.

Other examples could be given, such as Deuteronomy 32:12 saying that the LORD alone guided the Israelites, but we in fact know that the Israelites were guided by people such as Moses and Aaron. Also, Jesus says to call no man on earth your father because you have one Father, who is in heaven. If you want more examples then I thoroughly recommend section III of Joseph Hallet's "The Unity of God . . .", which you can read online: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TJ5bAAAAQAAJ&dq=Joseph Hallet unity of God&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=Joseph Hallet unity of God&f=false

In particular, scripture has a theme of ultimate vs. immediate. God was the ultimate leader of the Israelites, while Moses was their immediate leader. God is our ultimate Father, but we have immediate human fathers. The Father is the ultimate saviour and Jesus is the immediate saviour. The Father is the ultimate ruler (or most high God or "only sovereign"), and Jesus is the immediate ruler (or Lord/Master/Boss) (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 6:15, 1 Tim 2:5, Jude 1:4). In a similar way, one could interpret scripture as saying the Father is the ultimate creator, and Jesus is the immediate creator and/or instrument of creation. Hence when the Father says to be the only Creator, it can be understood as meaning the only ultimate Creator, just as when He is styled the only (ultimate) Father, or the only (ultimate) saviour, or the only (ultimate) God.

Your post is very long, and I only have a cell, so I have reply in pieces. The word nature is defined in the dictionary, and yes, God has a nature and so does man. And they are not the same. God also has attributes. To deny this would be in effect to deny His existence, which my friend is an attribute. God has attributes and man has attributes, and they are not the same. For example, God is eternal, man is not. God is all knowing, man is not. God is absolutely Holy, man is not.

To question Jesus having two natures, you would have to deny His Pre-existence. Do you deny His Pre-existence. To deny hypostatic union, which is just a fancy way of saying "the Word was made flesh, you would either have to deny His Pre-existence or His humanity. Jesus did not begin to exist in a manger in Bethlehem, did He? And if not, there was a Union of the pre-existent LOGOs with the human baby Jesus. It is not two people in one body, it is one person. The pre-existent LOGOs assumed fully a human nature. Hypostatic union. If you deny the hypostatic union, that the pre-existent LOGOS took on a full human nature, than you will fall into one of the various Christological heresies

As far as Christ before His incarnation, here is what we know

A. He was ready existing with the Father in the beginning

B. He shared in His Father's Glory, the Father who said He would not share His Glory with any Created Being

C. He made all things with the Father and the Spirit, and God said He made all things by Himself

D. He chose to Willingly be made flesh.

What else do you know about His Pre-existence
More to come

 

[Waggles]

 

[Macabeus]

Your post is very long, and I only have a cell, so I have reply in pieces. The word nature is defined in the dictionary, and yes, God has a nature and so does man. And they are not the same. God also has attributes. To deny this would be in effect to deny His existence, which my friend is an attribute. God has attributes and man has attributes, and they are not the same. For example, God is eternal, man is not. God is all knowing, man is not. God is absolutely Holy, man is not.

To question Jesus having two natures, you would have to deny His Pre-existence. Do you deny His Pre-existence. To deny hypostatic union, which is just a fancy way of saying "the Word was made flesh, you would either have to deny His Pre-existence or His humanity. Jesus did not begin to exist in a manger in Bethlehem, did He? And if not, there was a Union of the pre-existent LOGOs with the human baby Jesus. It is not two people in one body, it is one person. The pre-existent LOGOs assumed fully a human nature. Hypostatic union. If you deny the hypostatic union, that the pre-existent LOGOS took on a full human nature, than you will fall into one of the various Christological heresies

As far as Christ before His incarnation, here is what we know

A. He was ready existing with the Father in the beginning

B. He shared in His Father's Glory, the Father who said He would not share His Glory with any Created Being

C. He made all things with the Father and the Spirit, and God said He made all things by Himself

D. He chose to Willingly be made flesh.

What else do you know about His Pre-existence
More to come

Continuation of last post

The definition of nature in the context of what we are talking about is the basic or inherent features of something or someone

The definition of attribute is an inherant or basic characteristic of something or someone

So if you put the two together, the definition of nature is the collection of attributes that defines a being

Man is a human being, God is a Divine Being

As a being, God had attributes. He is personal, eternal, etc

As a human, I have attributes. Temporal, mortal, physical, etc

Jesus possesses two sets of attributes. The attributes He eternally possessed as the LOGOS, and the attributes He took upon Himself when He became a human being

The Divine LOGOS ( John 1:1) had a Divine nature, ( Divine attributes). The LOGOS was conceived and begotten by the virgin Mary, taking on Himself a full human nature with all of its attributes

He was made a little lower than the angels, ie human, for the suffering of death

Now it is evident that before His incarnation, He was much greater than the angels, for He who makes a being or thing is greater than that which was made

So Christ in His Pre-existent state was greater than angels, but in His incarnation He was made a little lower than the angels. He kenawed Himself

And the eternal immortal LOGOS bore our mortality so we could share in His Glory

He abased Himself..

And was exalted in His resurrection. Back to the Glory He had with the Father before the world's formation

Pre-existent Glory

Humiliation

Exaltation to the Glory He had before the foundation of the earth

My phone's dying. Talk to you later

 

[Macabeus]

@Macabeus I'm not sure why you keep focusing on the incarnation and using it to cover for the fact Jesus is over presented as less great or less authoritative as the Father. I specifically mentioned stuff which applies to Jesus before the incarnation and after His ascension, so I don't see how the incarnation is a valid excuses for the points which I brought up and you have yet to address.

Also, it seems that you impose a number of extra-biblical assumptions on the holy scriptures which taint your interpretation. For example, scripture does not say that Jesus has two natures (though it says He is a man and He is our God, it does not use natures or metaphysics to describe this), or that He possesses all the "divine attributes" (whatever those are). Nor does scripture say that the three persons are one being, or even one God. And it doesn't follow that something which is called theos/elohim is the one true God, because angels, kings, and even Satan are referred to in that way.

Now there is one argument of substance that I think deserves responding to, and one which I need to spend more time studying in the word of God:

I take it you are referring to Isaiah 44:24:


Notice that the pronouns are singular: e.g. "I" and "myself". In the Hebrew for the verse you also have singular verbs. This shows that a single person is speaking here. For example, when Jesus refers to Himself and the Father together He says "we" and "our", not "I" and "my":

Moreover, I'm not aware of any clear instance in scripture where singular pronouns are to refer to multiple persons at once. One would need some good evidence to think singular pronouns can refer to a multiple persons at once in order for it to even be plausible to interpret Isaiah 44:24 as referring to both the Father and the Son. And even if you think singular pronouns could refer to a multi-personal being (whatever that means exactly), you would have to admit it is at least slightly odd that singular pronouns are used with regard to the Creator in Isaiah 44:24, but in Gen 1:27 we have a plural pronoun used.

So how then are we to reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with the fact that both the Father and the Son were active in creation? Well, first we can look at the context of the verse and see that the LORD is setting Himself against idols, and hence it would seem that His primary purpose in 44:24 is to dispel any notion that any of the idols of the people created anything. That's why He says He made "all things", leaving no room for the false gods to have made anything on their own. Moreover, His saying that He "alone stretched out the heavens" and "spread out the earth by myself" could be understood as saying that He did it without any involvement from the false gods that the people of Israel were turning to and making for themselves.

Alternatively, one could make a distinction between different roles in creation. We see in the NT that from the Father are all things, and through the Son are all things (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Cor 11:12 (notice that 'God' here means the Father as usual and as in verse 3), Col 1:16, John 1:3). Hence one could say that from the Father alone (and by Himself) are all things. Also, the picture I get from Hebrews 1:2 is that the Father is the Creator in the most proper sense, with the Son being the instrument of creation who was used *by the Father*. That would seem to be why it says "through whom [Jesus] also he [the Father] created the world" (ESV, but the point holds in other formal translations). Moreover, Jesus Himself refers to the creation as being "God's [the Father's] creation" in Rev 3:14.

Such a distinction may seem contrived, but I think scripture often speaks in such a way, for example when Jesus said that the Father judges no-one at the final judgement:

yet we see that the Father is also said to judge at the final judgement (John 8:50, John 5:45, Rom 2:16). The way scripture explains this is that "God judges . . . through Christ Jesus"; the Father is the ultimate judge, whereas Jesus is the immediate judge who judges on behalf of the Father.

Other examples could be given, such as Deuteronomy 32:12 saying that the LORD alone guided the Israelites, but we in fact know that the Israelites were guided by people such as Moses and Aaron. Also, Jesus says to call no man on earth your father because you have one Father, who is in heaven. If you want more examples then I thoroughly recommend section III of Joseph Hallet's "The Unity of God . . .", which you can read online: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TJ5bAAAAQAAJ&dq=Joseph Hallet unity of God&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=Joseph Hallet unity of God&f=false

In particular, scripture has a theme of ultimate vs. immediate. God was the ultimate leader of the Israelites, while Moses was their immediate leader. God is our ultimate Father, but we have immediate human fathers. The Father is the ultimate saviour and Jesus is the immediate saviour. The Father is the ultimate ruler (or most high God or "only sovereign"), and Jesus is the immediate ruler (or Lord/Master/Boss) (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 6:15, 1 Tim 2:5, Jude 1:4). In a similar way, one could interpret scripture as saying the Father is the ultimate creator, and Jesus is the immediate creator and/or instrument of creation. Hence when the Father says to be the only Creator, it can be understood as meaning the only ultimate Creator, just as when He is styled the only (ultimate) Father, or the only (ultimate) saviour, or the only (ultimate) God.

There are different uses of Theo's in the Bible, but none of them create world's except YHWH. Plus Jesus is said to have stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, works that are attributed to YHWH alone. Thirdly, Jesus places titles of YHWH upon Himself, calling Himself the FIRST AND THE LAST AND THE BEGINNING AND THE END. Clearly references to Isaiah.

God said I am the First and I am the Last, and there was no God formed before, nor shall be any formed after me.

God said, you shall have no other God's before Me. Judaism and Christianity are both Monotheistic. No room for Big God and little God. Hear Israel, the Lord our God is One

Jesus receives worship along with the One who sits upon the throne in Revelation 5

Thomas cries out " My Lord and my God". Theos is a direct address, because He said it to Jesus.

We are commanded to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which in Acts is shortened to the Name of the Lord.

One God, one Lord. Jesus is Lord,kurios and Father is Lord. If you say that Jesus is not God because Father is One God, then consistency demands that you say that Father is not Lord because Christ is the One Lord.

Kurios is the word used for YHWH in the LXX, the Bible Paul and other apostles seem to quote

God said He stretched out the Word by Himself, because He did so by the His LOGOS and by His Spirit

I have a Spirit and it is me.

God has a Spirit and the Logos had a Spirit, and there is the Holy Spirit, but that Spirit is One

For the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of Christ in other places

Judaism and Christianity are Monotheistic, the angel told John "don't worship me, worship God". But Jesus' receives worship and the Father commands that we worship Him

John 1:3 does not say Jesus was a secondary creator, nor does Hebrews 1, nor does Colossians 1:15.

Lord is used in different ways, but in a unique way for Jesus, seeing He is called One Lord kurios

 

[Macabeus]

Thanks for the vid! I'll check it out

 

[Macabeus]

Thanks for the vid! I'll check it out

I am in the process of watching it. There are some parts of the Theology I'm not sure I totally agree with, ( not disagree, just not sure) but I agree with a lot of things too and I learned some things I didn't know before, and saw some things in a slightly different light.

Thanks for posting it

 

[Macabeus]

In

I am in the process of watching it. There are some parts of the Theology I'm not sure I totally agree with, ( not disagree, just not sure) but I agree with a lot of things too and I learned some things I didn't know before, and saw some things in a slightly different light.

Thanks for posting it

In Christ dwells all the fulness of Deity bodily.

 

[Combanitorics]

There is more than one meaning of Arian. Spelling the word Arian refers back to a first century bishop from the City of Rome during the first century.

The modernist meaning of the word, spelled Aryan, is transferred to the west from the east and is drawn from the belief system of a region in which the natives believe in a different timeline.

 

[Aerials1978]

I think a lot of people today have a misconception that ever since the Nicene creed Christians have believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are all together one individual being, and the one true God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three in one. I'm no expert in church history, but I don't think this is what the Nicenes like Athanasius, Basil "the great" of Caesarea, and Hilary of Poitiers believed, let alone what anyone believed before the fourth century. Thus if the Nicenes were alive today, a lot of people would consider them to be "Trinity deniers". Conversely, the Nicenes would consider modern Catholic and evangelical Trinitarians to be modalists.

The Nicene creed was not intended to teach that the three are one individual being. Rather, Nicaea was teaching generic coessentiality, not individual coessentiality. To explain by an analogy, three men (they would say) have the same generic essence by virtue of them all being humans with human nature. Three men, however, do not have the same individual essence because they are not one man. Basil of Caesarea, for example, said that the word 'homoousios' (coessential) rules out the Father and the Son being the same individual, since one cannot be coessential with oneself, but only with another.

This was still the understanding of coessentiality by the time of Chalcedon:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood . . ."

So if we are to hold Nicaea as the standard of Christian orthodoxy, then people today who say that the three persons are the same individual being are heretics.

Wasn’t Arianism overwhelmingly rejected at the first council and ultimately Aruis was banished? I thought the Nicaea council was to establish the one God in three persons theology?

 

[Combanitorics]

Wasn’t Arianism overwhelmingly rejected at the first council and ultimately Aruis was banished? I thought the Nicaea council was to establish the one God in three persons theology?

Arianism was rejected. The Council had more than one effect, it was essentially the result of a theological dispute between Arius, of Rome, and Polycarp, of Alexandria. The real issue at stake in theological terms was whether God was one or was a trinity. The dispute was occurring at a time before Christianity was a legally recognized religion in the state, and was judged by Constantine, at least on the civic side. (The Nicaean council was of church authorities). Actually, both Arius and Polycarp were Romans, but that's not considered quite as important as the religious case. Arius was a "Christian", trivially speaking, but more traditionally Roman than Polycarp. Arius supported making Christianity a legal religion with a recognized status, and having Jesus declared one of the acceptable Roman gods. Polycarp of Alexandria (by the way, Alexandria was in the province of Egypt, and this has little to do with Greece), developed the doctrine of the God-Holy Spirit-Messiah trinity that is still considered mainstream today.

 

[presidente]

One of the issues that comes to mind for me on this topic is whether Jews or Gentiles hearing the preaching of the apostles as presented in a given text were necessarily going to come away with a full trinitarian understanding of the Godhead. Peter does not require confession or belief in the specifics of the Nicene Creed regarding the Trinity to be forgiven of sin. Paul does not mention belief in the personhood of the Spirit or all the specific Nicene beliefs regarding the nature of Christ's Sonship in his summary of the Gospel in I Corinthians 15 or in his presentations of the Gospel in Acts. So while the Nicene Creed was built on theological interpretations of a wide array of scriptures, is it consistent with the presentations of the Gospel in the Gospels, Acts, or the epistles to think that believers at that time had to hold to the Nicene presentation of the nature of God in order to be saved? That idea does not seem to align well with the teaching of scripture, IMO.

Because of this, I would not say that Arians were, or are, damned. Also, the term 'Arian' was used more broadly, including not only those who agreed with Arius idea about the preincarnate Christ being created, but also those who disagreed with specifics of the Nicene Creed. Wulfius did missionary work among East Germanic tribes. For a while, many of the Nicene Trinitarian Christians were pacifists, but there were Arian soldiers. I had a look at a confession or creed Wulfius accepted, and it was close to Trinitarian, but did not affirm the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but did affirm the deity of Christ. Honestly, if you are really trying to prove that from scripture without making assumptions, it is a bit more tenuous. So I can understand why that creed did not make a firm statement on the matter. It may be some so-called Arians were 'binitarians.'

I am not sure if all the Goths and Vandals held to the same Creed, but when we read that they were Arians, I wonder if they affirmed the deity of Christ, just not some of the details of the Nicene Creed.

Also, the Athanasian creed, which we might call psuedo-Athanasian since it is unlikely Athanasius himself wrote it, condemns those who do not accept the creed, including co-equality of the Spirit and specifics of Trinitarian theology. This is a lesser creed, not really ecumenical. The Eastern Orthodox did not officially accept it as an official creed of the church but may kind of accept it as secondary. I don't know how to word it exactly. I suppose some of it __could be__ interpreted to support the philoque which the west added to the Nicene Creed about the idea of the Spirit proceeding forth from Christ.

I don't accept the part about those not confessing all the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed. The issue for me is not the trinitarian doctrine per se, but the idea that it might imply that genuine believers, even in Biblical times, might not have been saved for not accepting later doctrinal clarification that the apostles did not lay down as something that must be believed to be saved.

Christians have different concepts of what is 'the standard.' Even within Protestantism, creeds and confessions can be given some weight along with scripture, including among those who say 'sola scriptura.' Other groups say that faith should be based on scripture and not creeds and confessions. So if you are from a non-creed tradition, then what these creeds say is of lesser importance.