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
Are we arians?
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.