Arian Christology

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hi Tony –

Interesting.

Maximus the Confessor speaks of the creation as:
Mineral
Vegetable
Animal
Human
Angelic

The first three belong to the material realm; the Angelic belongs to the spirit/intellect realm, and man has a foot in both, standing at the apex. The first three have 'spirit', but not consciousness of the spirit, there is no 'seat of the intellect' or reflective capacity.

The Holy Spirit is Uncreate, and thus transcends all created categories.

Regarding the talk you cite, It seems there's an intermediary between the Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit? In Christianity, there is no such 'intercessor', the 'dialogue' between human and divine is direct.

Thank you for that Thomas, it opens up much discussion on that topic and many avenues of thought.

I see it is correct to say the first 3 reflect the material realm, and the human is on both sides with the angelic being of the spiritual.

What Baha'u'llah offered is that even the Holy Spirit is created, thus knowing that, may change the perception to the reflection given in the talk of Abdu'lbaha.

This is a passage that I gain my thoughts from;

P/S It also shows what is the Trinity

Spoiler

“Naught is seen in My temple but the Temple of God, and in My beauty but His Beauty, and in My being but His Being, and in My self but His Self, and in My movement but His Movement, and in My acquiescence but His Acquiescence, and in My pen but His Pen, the Mighty, the All-Praised. There hath not been in My soul but the Truth, and in Myself naught could be seen but God.” “The Holy Spirit Itself hath been generated through the agency of a single letter revealed by this Most Great Spirit, if ye be of them that comprehend.”… “Within the treasury of Our Wisdom there lies unrevealed a knowledge, one word of which, if we chose to divulge it to mankind, would cause every human being to recognize the Manifestation of God and to acknowledge His omniscience, would enable every one to discover the secrets of all the sciences, and to attain so high a station as to find himself wholly independent of all past and future learning."
“Naught is seen in My temple but the Temple of God, and in My beauty but His Beauty, and in My being but His Being, and in My self but His Self, and in My movement but His Movement, and in My acquiescence but His Acquiescence, and in My pen but His Pen, the Mighty, the All-Praised. There hath not been in My soul but the Truth, and in Myself naught could be seen but God.” “The Holy Spirit Itself hath been generated through the agency of a single letter revealed by this Most Great Spirit, if ye be of them that comprehend.”… “Within the treasury of Our Wisdom there lies unrevealed a knowledge, one word of which, if we chose to divulge it to mankind, would cause every human being to recognize the Manifestation of God and to acknowledge His omniscience, would enable every one to discover the secrets of all the sciences, and to attain so high a station as to find himself wholly independent of all past and future learning." https://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-37.html

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius says:
"... the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, fully God" (πλήρης θεός pleres theos, fully God) And the letter is quoted by both Athanasius and Theodoret – and it seems reasonable if they, as 'victors' were casting Arius in a poor light, they would not have included that phrase.

The letter that you quote above seems to contradict what Arius was teaching .. I'm very skeptical about it.

Arius appears to have held that the "Son of God" was not eternal but created by the Father as an instrument for creating the world and therefore not God by nature, different from other creatures in being the one direct creation of God.

- Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005) -

How can one claim to have a serious theological argument that Jesus was both "fully God" and "created by God" simultaneously?
I can think of a reason why "the victors" would want to include that phrase.

Arius maintained that the Son possessed neither the eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God" only by the Father's permission and power

In any case, as I have already pointed out, "Arianism" didn't start with Arius. What the early Christians actually believed is a matter of debate. There were many factions.

All the Creed says is "And the Holy Spirit" ... hardly the Romans handing down a definition of the Trinity!

The Roman authorities did not invent the Nicene trinity. They put severe pressure on Christians during 'the great persecution', favouring some groups over others.
That is why a number of Christian communities in the 4th. century were riven between those who had complied with imperial authorities (traditores) and those who had refused.

 

[Aupmanyav]

..much like anybody who claims to be someone special, we need to be skeptical while also considering what they have to say.

You see, my friend, these kind of stories begat skeptics and skepticism when no evidence other than words is provided. If it was not for such things, I would not have become an atheist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You see, my friend, these kind of stories begat skeptics and skepticism when no evidence other than words is provided.

It doesn't look that way to me..
I see that a significant amount of people believed that Jesus performed miracles, and still do.
i.e. over half the world population.

One may argue that it is just a coincidence, but I see that it has something to do with
credibility.

 

[Thomas]

The letter that you quote above seems to contradict what Arius was teaching .. I'm very skeptical about it.

I can understand why you would be, but nevertheless it is regarded as genuine.

How can one claim to have a serious theological argument that Jesus was both "fully God" and "created by God" simultaneously?

By bearing in mind what they thought, not what we think.

In any case, as I have already pointed out, "Arianism" didn't start with Arius. What the early Christians actually believed is a matter of debate. There were many factions.

But that's not the issue here ... thankfully ... or this would go on ad eternum

As someone said, there has to be orthodoxy before there can be heresy.

Historically, the period is very rich, and there are 'ambiguities' around Christianity becoming the official religion of the empire.

Weathering distance, isolation, occasional persecution and other factors, the structure of the church was loosely set with bishops, presbyters and deacons, theologians and philosophers enjoying varying authority, usually not well defined and sometimes in disagreement, with competing ideas, interpretations and expressions.

In all this you had the different disposition of the catechetical schools at Alexandria and Antioch – Arius was an Alexandrian, but seems nor Antiochene in his outlook. Arius was close to the philosophy of the neoPlatonist Plotinus.

Jerusalem slowly diminished in status as the fallout between Christian and Jew solidified; Rome had relatively little to say on theological dispute, and then Constantinople emerged and considered itself the 'new Rome' and being young and brash, wanted to be up there with, if not at the head of, 'the big boys'.

'Arianism' today is more useful as a description of a tendency to rationalise Christology, rather than nailing a flag to the mast of the fourth century. At didn't go away with Nicaea, nor with Constantinople, nor with Chalcedon, and the fallout of the latter had a far greater impact, theologically and politically, on the Roman Empire than either of its predecessors.

Arianism as a tendency emerges in some form wherever the divinity of Christ is challenged, although obviously not in the precise form that Arius held to.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony –

What Baha'u'llah offered is that even the Holy Spirit is created ...

I see. I can only assume that either he refers to some other gradation (can I say that, there seems to be a spiritual hierarchy?) of the spirit. or he has misconstrued the Holy Spirit as spoken of in Christian Orthodoxy.

I found this reference in a Baha'i Library:
"The question of the Trinity, since the time of His Holiness Christ until now, is the belief of the Christians, and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded. All have confessed that the question is beyond the grasp of reason, for three cannot become one, nor one three. To unite these is impossible; it is either one or three."
This is not actually the case. While it is a given that no human intellect can fully comprehend the Divine in Its fulness, nevertheless 'the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit', as our Sacred Scriptures declare – but leaving that to one side, the other assertion that 'and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded' is simply not the case at all; there are in our treasury some of the most luminous texts on the Blessed Trinity – a complete list would be too extensive – but here's one:
"the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all." Hippolytus of Rome.

That the Trinity can never be fully comprehended in Itself goes without question, but there are ample analogies by which It might be understood, with clarity and insight.

If we say that the Trinity was originally one and was later divided ...
But we don't ... nor do we believe in any way that the text seeks to demonstrate our misunderstanding ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

By bearing in mind what they thought, not what we think.

Right, OK .. but this is the problem .. we are trying to establish "what they thought".

Do you think that being "fully God" and also "created by God" is theologically credible?

But that's not the issue here ... thankfully ... or this would go on ad eternum

As someone said, there has to be orthodoxy before there can be heresy..

Exactly .. the issue IS about that.
What if the Arians had been the victors and claimed that Nicene Christianity was heresy???

Why is it that Nicene Christianity must be "the true belief"?
Why are all the other factions wrong?

A council of bishops deciding something immediately after an extreme persecution does not prove it..

Jerusalem slowly diminished in status as the fallout between Christian and Jew solidified; Rome had relatively little to say on theological dispute, and then Constantinople emerged and considered itself the 'new Rome' and being young and brash, wanted to be up there with, if not at the head of, 'the big boys'.

Constantine was a Christian emperor. What a HUGE responsibility!
I'm not blaming him.

Arianism as a tendency emerges in some form wherever the divinity of Christ is challenged, although obviously not in the precise form that Arius held to.

..and why shouldn't it be challenged?
You haven't shown me why "the Arians" might not have been right, have you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..so there we have it..
Abrahamic religion is split into factions, each faction claiming this or that.

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, is a Unitarian .. he is a heretic
"the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus"

Nonconformists and Dissenters in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain.

 

[RJM]

Right, OK .. but this is the problem .. we are trying to establish "what they thought".

But it has been established. Can’t be helped that you don’t like it.

Do you think that being "fully God" and also "created by God" is theologically credible?

'Begotten, not made', is the wording of the Nicene Creed. Think: Vine, branch, fruit ... (already discussed)

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

What if the Arians had been the victors and claimed that Nicene Christianity was heresy???

What if anything??? What if Arius had never been born??? What if Rome had never existed??? What if my great great grandfather had never been born???

Why is it that Nicene Christianity must be "the true belief"? A council of bishops deciding something immediately after an extreme persecution does not prove it..

However that is what was decided. If it had gone the other way, then it would be different, would it not?

Why are all the other factions wrong?

They could be right. What the church believes doesn’t mean everyone has to believe it. They don’t come round to your house and hit you over the head if you don’t want to believe it. They don’t stop you going in at the church door. It’s just what the church believes. A person can believe whatever they want.

..and why shouldn't it be challenged?
You haven't shown me why "the Arians" might not have been right, have you?

Arians did not challenge the divinity of the Son. The debate was how to square it away.

Abrahamic religion is split into factions, each faction claiming this or that.

And ... ?

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, is a Unitarian .. he is a heretic

He is at liberty to believe what he wants. He's at liberty to be a heretic if he wants. Or a kuhfa if he wants. He doesn't have to believe anything he doesn't want to. Where's the compulsion?

(Sorry to drawn into this again: it's just so hard to let this stuff run on unchallenged)

 

[muhammad_isa]

What if Arius had never been born???

It wouldn't have made any difference .. there were plenty more "Arians" around

 

[RJM]

Nonconformists and Dissenters in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain.

Catholics didn't do too well under Elizabeth I or Oliver Cromwell. Protestants didn't do too well under Bloody Mary. Trying to grasp your point here?

Has nontrinitarian worship been banned since 1813?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Trying to grasp your point here?

Has nontrinitarian worship been banned since 1813?

No .. the only point is that it is only 200 years ago when such a belief became acceptable in society.
What a legacy our ancestors established !

I am aware that some Islamic countries have heresy laws .. that is not what is being discussed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Origen taught that Jesus was deuteros theos (secondary god), a notion borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy. He also said the Son was "distinct" from the Father. Finally Origen insisted that the Son, though eternal, is other in substance than the Father, and is lesser in power. It should be noticed that some of these same references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However, subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than the Father.

..so Origen was an Arian?

At the time when Origen was alive, orthodox views on the Trinity had not yet been formulated and subordinationism was not yet considered heretical. In fact, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent. Origen's subordinationism may have developed out of his efforts to defend the unity of God against the Gnostics.

..not an "Arian" then .. a subordinationist.

In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned

Oh no ! It doesn't look like many people had "the truth" .. or is it all an illusion?
Never mind .. there must be something left from all that burning.

 

[Thomas]

Do you think that being "fully God" and also "created by God" is theologically credible?

Well NeoPlatonism is a credible system. It's influence on Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought is evident. As an emanationism system, it allows for hierarchical degrees of divinity.

Philo of Alexandria was influenced by it, the Christian Fathers were. Sufi cosmology bears its imprint, as do Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina and Ibn Arabi, to name but two.

What if the Arians had been the victors and claimed that Nicene Christianity was heresy???

What indeed ... there'd not a lot of difference, apart from a line in the Creed ...

A council of bishops deciding something immediately after an extreme persecution does not prove it..

But the same would apply if the Arian doctrine was accepted... so moot, really.

Constantine was a Christian emperor. What a HUGE responsibility! I'm not blaming him.

No-one is, though?

One might argue Hosius of Cordova, his theological adviser, but that's for another day!

..and why shouldn't it be challenged?

Not saying it shouldn't ... only that sometimes people come up with 'new' questions that are actually the 'same old' in new clothes.

You haven't shown me why "the Arians" might not have been right, have you?

I could, if we could agree on what Arius was saying – but as you choose to be skeptical of scholarship, it's difficult ... currently this thread is jumping all over the shop in a 'keep throwing spaghetti in the hope that something sticks' kinda way...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well NeoPlatonism is a credible system. It's influence on Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought is evident. As an emanationism system, it allows for hierarchical degrees of divinity.

Yes, I can agree with that.
"fully God" .. "very God of very God" etc. etc. is besides the point really.
..but I don't think that many trinitarians see it that way.

The most important point is about the Father being greater than the Son

But the same would apply if the Arian doctrine was accepted... so moot, really

It certainly would. One can still claim that the doctrine is not correct.
I'm just saying that the orthodox understanding of the trinity, which despite you saying that it has nothing to do with the Nicene creed, would not have been established.

I could, if we could agree on what Arius was saying – but as you choose to be skeptical of scholarship, it's difficult

Lets' not make it all about Arius .. let's talk about the reason why the Father is not greater than the Son?

 

[RJM]

let's talk about the reason why the Father is not greater than the Son?

I am only a shadow of my father who was a great and good man. I can only look up to him as what a man he really was.

But I was at his bedside when he died, and I was in the church for his funeral, and at his graveside when he was buried -- and sometimes I visit his grave, where he is buried with my mother beneath the square stone tower of an old church in a little country town in Devon.

You're making too much of the physical Father and Son aspect of trinity -- especially of the man Jesus as portrayed by the Quran. It's more than that. The Christ is more than what the Quran limits him to be (already discussed)

It's not so simple. It's a verbal attempt to explain spiritual law to natural man. And if it was literal -- as just demonstrated: the Son outlives the Father.

So what you say to that?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what you say to that?

I was asking in the context of why beliefs like those of Origin are heretical.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hi Tony –


I see. I can only assume that either he refers to some other gradation (can I say that, there seems to be a spiritual hierarchy?) of the spirit. or he has misconstrued the Holy Spirit as spoken of in Christian Orthodoxy.

I found this reference in a Baha'i Library:
"The question of the Trinity, since the time of His Holiness Christ until now, is the belief of the Christians, and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded. All have confessed that the question is beyond the grasp of reason, for three cannot become one, nor one three. To unite these is impossible; it is either one or three."
This is not actually the case. While it is a given that no human intellect can fully comprehend the Divine in Its fulness, nevertheless 'the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit', as our Sacred Scriptures declare – but leaving that to one side, the other assertion that 'and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded' is simply not the case at all; there are in our treasury some of the most luminous texts on the Blessed Trinity – a complete list would be too extensive – but here's one:
"the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all." Hippolytus of Rome.

That the Trinity can never be fully comprehended in Itself goes without question, but there are ample analogies by which It might be understood, with clarity and insight.

If we say that the Trinity was originally one and was later divided ...
But we don't ... nor do we believe in any way that the text seeks to demonstrate our misunderstanding ...

Thank you for the reply Thomas.

The quote you offered further down also gave an explanation.

"The reality of this question is as follows: Divine Oneness is proven and He revealeth Himself in the Holy Essences. The sun is one sun but manifesteth itself in different mirrors. If thou lookest into the mirror and seest the manifestation of the sun, thou wilt way, the sun is in the mirror and this sun manifest in the mirror is the same sun of the heavens; although two suns, yet in reality they are one. The sun hath not descended from its high and lofty station, it hath not taken up its abode in this mirror, but hath manifested itself therein.
The Christ reality was like unto a pure mirror and the Sun of Reality shone upon it from the Holy Horizon. Therefore, it became evident that the sun is one with regard to reality but manifesting itself in all mirrors."

That to me is a clear explanation.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I was asking in the context of why beliefs like those of Origin are heretical.

I need to ask you a difficult question. If the Quran is limited about Jesus, what then?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

You're making too much of the physical Father and Son aspect of trinity -- especially of the man Jesus as portrayed by the Quran. It's more than that. The Christ is more than what the Quran limits him to be (already discussed)

I see the Quran does not limit Christ in any way, but makes it clear to us that the body of Jesus was not Christ or God.

The flesh amounts to nothing, it is the Spirit that is life.

The material world is subject to the dissolution of matter.

Regards Tony